We refer to the article on the Star “Lim Blasted over tender clause” (“Article”), dated 1st March 2010 and wish to clarify our position on the matter. We are surprised at the actions of certain parties who wish to blow up completely out of proportion what is essentially a simple administrative matter.

As reported in the said article, we have indeed included a clause in our Tender Form A allowing termination of awarded contracts at any point in time and without any reason, on the orders of our PDC Chairman (the “Clause”). The Clause is not without its justification.

We wish to stress 4 points. 1, no contractor has ever expressed unhappiness or objected to the clauses contained in the tender Form A. 2, The Chief Minister had never cancelled any contract. 3, this clause is inserted as a form of protection for the public interests of PDC. As there is a time lapse of several months between the issuance of tender Form A and execution of the formal contract between PDC and the contractor, this clause protects PDC by giving PDC the right to terminate the tender before the contract is signed. PDC wants this right during the interim period before the contract is signed in the event of discovering any manipulation, malpractice, hanky-panky and corruption. 4, the Chief Minister/Chairman acts on the proposal of management and he may or may not accept the advice of the management to terminate on an urgent basis based on the reasons in point 3 above. So far, neither has management made any proposal nor The Chief Minister terminated any Tender Award.

For your clarification, Tender Form A is only the preliminary stage in PDC’s entire technical contract process. It is not the only document governing technical contracts. After the said form has been issued, PDC and the contractor are required to enter into and execute a separate agreement (PDC Form 203A) (“Agreement”) in order to formalize the contract awarded. It is to be noted that the Agreement contains regulations for breach on the part of the contractor.

Upon issuance of Tender Form A, the selected contractor would have begun his operations pending execution of the agreement. However, in many cases, there is usually a lapse of several months before the contractor actually executes the said Agreement. In the absence of a formal agreement, PDC faces difficulty in terminating the services of the contractor in the event of a breach or default or the occurrence of a negative event.

Thus, in order to regulate the services of the contractor during the interim period, i.e. prior to execution of the Agreement, PDC included the Clause giving a right to terminate the contract so awarded. The Clause is only meant to serve as a temporary regulatory measure until execution of the Agreement.

For further clarification, PDC did not incorporate the Clause into the Agreement as it already contains its own provisions for governing causes for termination. These provisions are adequate to deal with any form of events that may trigger termination during the period of the contract. This clearly indicates that our intention is not to simply terminate contracts at anytime. If otherwise, PDC would have surely carried the intention to terminate on the order of an individual throughout the entire process and into the Agreement.

We also wish to highlight that PDC’s present practice to deal with contracts considered for termination does not rest in any individual of PDC or the PDC Chairman. Instead, PDC has its own Tender Board to look into and decide on such matters. The Tender Board has the ultimate and final say on all technical contracts/matters and only decisions of the same are carried out.

In light of the above and for all intents and purposes, PDC’s practices have not strayed from the Treasury’s tender procedures as alleged in the Article.

PDC has, so far, awarded 10 contracts carrying the Clause in Tender Form A to 10 contractors. However, all these 10 contractors have each further executed the Agreement with PDC. Since the Agreements entered into do not contain the Clause, the contractors do not have to worry about their contracts being terminated on the order of an individual.

We hope that this simple administrative measure is seen as necessary to protect PDC from possible manipulation, malpractice or even corruption to protect public interest and not other irrelevant reasons.

Christmas marks the day Jesus was born, the divine being whom Christians believed to be the Son of God sent to save mankind. As such it is an occasion not only of salvation and redemption of our sins but also of peace and hope.

All Malaysians pray for the same values, especially in fighting corruption and abuse of power. The fall in Malaysia’s Transparency International rankings from No. 47 and 5.1 points in 2008 to No. 56 with 4.5 points this year has only spotlighted attention on how much Malaysia has lost to corruption.

From the admission of RM 28 billion yearly by a Malaysian Minister to estimates of RM 100 billion by an Australian author to USD 100 billion by a Morgan Stanley economist, Malaysians demand some form of accountability. With so much public funds lost, a Royal Commission of Enquiry is the most appropriate forum to get to the root of the problem of corruption.

The theft of 2 fighter jet engines and other equipment from an air force military base worth more than RM 100 million has shamed Malaysia internationally. How can our armed forces defend the country, if they military bases are not safe? Worse, how could the jet engines be so easily smuggled out to be sold either in Africa or South America. Either there is a massive inside job happening or there are more military equipment stolen that we are still unaware of.

All Malaysians are united against corruption and demand a Royal Commission of Enquiry to ensure that there is no cover-up. The Federal government should come clean on these scandals to restore its damaged international credibility by taking stern action against those responsible. DAP is willing to co-operate with the Federal government to clean up our country’s image and fulfil the teachings not only of Christians but all other religions to practice “enjoin good, forbid evil”(amar maaruf, nahi mungkar)

Let us pledge to make not only our military camps secure but redeem our faith in good values and renew hope by fighting corruption.

DAP wishes all Christians a Merry Christmas.

Transparency International’s(TI) recognition of anti-corruption efforts by the Penang state government through CAT governance is backed up by savings of nearly 12% of the 2008 Penang state budget of RM 36 million from operating expenditure. This RM 36 million savings has allowed the state government to carry out social programs and implement its people-oriented government of 3Es that:

- Enables the people with skills, knowledge and education to provide equal opportunity for all to create wealth

- Empowers the people with fundamental rights, basic freedoms and responsibilities with full observance for the rule of law

- Enrich the people by sharing wealth and economic benefits to pursue socio-economic justice

The success of the Penang Pakatan Rakyat state government in fighting corruption has been commended by Transparency International in the 2009 Global Corruption Report(GCR) released yesterday that stated,

“Penang state has introduced several measures to improve the regulatory environment with regard to government procurement, in what is referred to as a CAT – a Competent, Accountable and Transparent – government. It is the first state government to implement the open tender system for government procurement and contracts. As an example, in civil works, contractors are able to bid in an open tender process and to review the successful contractors and object if they are not satisfied. Furthermore, the Penang government has issued a directive whereby all administrators and state executive councilors are not allowed to make any new land applications. It has also invited professionals to serve on various boards, such as the Penang State Appeals Board, and has established a Working Professional Committee comprising individuals from five different professional bodies to improve land procedures.”

On behalf of the Penang state government, we feel humbled by the recognition given by a world renowned body such as Transparency International and would redouble efforts to ensure the anti-corruption reforms are institutionalized and ensure more professionals are appointed to key bodies. Fighting corruption generate savings for the people.

Apart from the RM 36 million in savings from operating expenditure, the 2 local authorities in Penang are expected to save another RM 34 million over three years. This additional savings were achieved from the transparent negotiation over the price of solid waste disposal that reduced the rates agreed to by the previous BN administration by a further 42.4%.

The Malaysian government would profit from the recommendations from the GCR 2009. Of great concern is the observation by PEMUDAH, the government’s special task force to facilitate business, citing a World Bank study, estimates that corruption could cost Malaysia as much as RM10 billion a year – an amount equivalent to 1 or 2 per cent of GDP. PEMUDAH notes that, per capita, Malaysia spends only RM5 (approximately US$1.5) on anti-corruption efforts.

PEMUDAH also notes that the ACA investigated only 10.1 per cent, or just 7,223 cases, of the total 71,558 reported between 2000 and 2006. The number of people successfully convicted was only 0.7 per cent, or 524, of those suspected of corruption. The GCR 2009 concluded that this illustration of the Malaysian government’s inaction in the light of the serious corruption allegations, along with its seeming inability to catch the big fish instead focusing on the ‘small fry’, suggests that what anti-corruption efforts exist are mere tokens.

RM 10 billion in losses from corruption per year is a huge sum and there must be greater commitment from the Federal government towards fighting corruption to ensure that 27 million Malaysians can benefit from this RM 10 billion dividend from successfully combating corruption.

DAP urges the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to extend the terms of reference for RCI into the death of DAP’s Teoh Beng Hock to fully investigate the cause of death, identify the culprits responsible as well as identify and overcome weakness to prevent any more custodial deaths.

The Teoh Beng Hock RCI should be concerned not just about the human rights that were violated as a result of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) interrogation methods but also for causing the loss of human life.

The BN government must respect the wishes of Beng Hock’s family calling for a full RCI instead of the superficial RCI set up that appears to hide rather than disclose what happenend. Malaysians can not understand why the government is so concerned about Teoh’s human rights when Teoh is dead. There should be total focus on finding the real culprits and determine the truth so that justice can be done for Beng Hock.

Further the members and Chair of the RCI should be independent and we propose Senator Tunku Aziz as the Chairman. Even though Senator Tunku Aziz is from the DAP, he is a well respected person of impeccable integrity and upright reputation who was not only the President of Transparency International but also International Vice-President of TI.

Let Us Honour Him By Ensuring That There Would Be No More Teoh Beng Hocks Cases Again And Donating To The Teoh Beng Hock Trust Fund To Look After The Financial Needs Of His Unborn Child.

Details Of The Teoh Beng Hock Trust Fund

The Trust Fund’s purpose is to look after living, medical, education and other financial needs of the unborn child of late Sdr Teoh Beng Hock.

Bank account: Public Bank (Cawangan (A/c No. 3154 127 533)

This is the only trust fund set up for the welfare of Sdr Teoh’s unborn child. The family has not given consent for the setting up of any other fund for this purpose.

(Excerpt from the speech In Chinese Assembly Hall On 23.7.2009 )

Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang telah mendepositkan wang sejumlah RM14,678,135.50 ke Mahkamah Tinggi (3) Pulau Pinang seperti yang telah diperintahkan bagi kes penyelewengan tanah Tang Hak Ju yang berlaku pada pentadbiran lama.

Bayaran 50% daripada jumlah kos ganti rugi kepada Tang Hak Ju itu telah dibuat oleh Jabatan Kewangan Negeri pada 13 Mei 2009 melalui cek. Sebelum ini, Kerajaan Negeri telah menerima surat daripada Tetuan Lim Kean Siew & Co yang mewakili pemohon (iaitu Tang Hak Ju) untuk mendepositkan jumlah tersebut sebagaimana yang telah diperintahkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang pada 19 Febuari 2009. Kerajaan Negeri membuat bayaran tersebut bagi mengelakkan tindakan menghina Mahkamah yang boleh diambil oleh Responden-responden.

Ini merupakan kes yang telah merugikan Kerajaan Negeri dan pembaziran wang rakyat akibat kecuaian dan keputusan yang tidak tepat. Saya sangat musykil bagaimana Kerajaan Negeri yang dulu boleh meluluskan sekeping tanah yang luasnya 10.6 ekar kepada seorang individu yang kononnya adalah pengusaha kuari. Tanah seluas 10.6 ekar adalah cukup besar untuk diberikan hanya kepada seorang individu yang sepatutnya tidak berlaku. Dalam kes ini saya sesungguhnya berpendapat telah berlaku kecuaian di semua peringkat.

Kes ini telah menjadi kes mahkamah apabila Kerajaan Negeri yang lalu telah membatalkan pemberian milik tanah tersebut. Akibatnya Kerajaan Negeri mengalami kerugian apabila keputusan mahkamah telah berpihak kepada individu berkenaan. Sebelum kes ini difailkan di mahkamah, terdapat proses perundingan untuk menyelesaikan kes ini di luar mahkamah dengan ganti rugi yang jauh lebih rendah iaitu RM1.8 juta, tetapi Kerajaan Negeri yang dahulu tidak bersetuju menyebabkan berlakunya saman di mahkamah di mana akibatnya perintah bayaran yang dibuat oleh mahkamah ialah RM29 juta (asalnya RM40 juta – dikurangkan selepas rayuan).

Dengan kadar 8% sejak tahun Februari 2005, jumlah kehilangan yang mungkin dialami oleh pihak kerajaan negeri mungkin mencecah RM 40 juta. Sekiranya jumlah wang ini dibahagi rata kepada semua rakyat Pulau Pinang yang berjumlah 1.5 juta, setiap orang akan menerima RM27. Jika angka ini diberikan kepada 150,000 warga mas yang dijangka menetap di Pulau Pinang maka setiap orang akan menerima RM270.

Kerajaan Negeri juga telah lancarkan siasatan terhadap skandal penyelewengan tanah Kes Tang Hak Ju ini. Namun Kerajaan Negeri menghadapi kesulitan kerana keengganan ahli-ahli pentadbiran dulu seperti Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon, Datuk Dr Teng Hock Nan dan Dato’ Seri Abdul Rashid untuk bekerjasama dalam menyiasat kes ini dengan lebih terperinci demi mencari kebenaran dalam kes ini.

Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Tanah Negeri yang diadakan pada 30 Mac 2009 telah memutuskan bahawa 3 buah syarikat kuari di Daerah Seberang Perai Tengah akan dibekukan semua bentuk operasi mereka berkuatkuasa hari ini sehingga siasatan selesaikan dijalankan mengenai isu di bawah deklarasi royalti “Under Declaration Of Royalty” bagi membantu siasatan kerajaan negeri.

Syarikat-syarikat yang diputuskan untuk dibekukan operasi mereka ialah :-
1.Kuad Sdn Bhd
2.Batu Tiga Quarry Sdn Bhd
3.Saw Chong Teok Quarry Sdn Bhd

Sementara itu,Jawatankuasa Tanah Negeri telah melantik YB Law Choo Kiang untuk menjalankan siasatan tersebut dengan teliti agar hasil royalti kerajaan negeri secara tidak langsung dapat diperolehi. Pembekuan operasi tidak dijangka makan masa yang panjang dan akan ditarik balik sebaik siasatan siap.

YB Law Choo Kiang juga akan menyiasat satu kes yang melibatkan kadar royalti tanah merah & bahan batuan yang dikurangkan daripada RM3 kepada RM1 per meter kubik.

Oleh yang demikian, saya berharap syarikat-syarikat terbabit dapat memberikan kerjasama sepenuhnya kepada siasatan ini kerana Jawatankuasa Tanah Negeri memberi kuasa untuk YB Law Choo Kiang mendapatkan semua dokumen atau perkara-perkara yang berkaitan dengan keperluan siasatan beliau.

Jika perlu, Kerajaan Negeri juga akan menyusulkan siasatan kepada lain-lain syarikat kuari selepas selesai penyiasatan terhadap 3 syarikat kuari ini.

1. Semua wakil rakyat PR di Pulau Pinang, mengecam tindakan tiga (3) wakil rakyat daripada Parti Keadilan Rakyat(PKR) seorang wakil rakyat daripada Democratic Action Party(DAP) di Negeri Perak yang melompat masuk menyokong BN sehingga menyebabkan PR kehilangan majoritinya di Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak. Tindakan ini disifatkan sebagai suatu tindakan khianat kepada budaya demokrasi dan derhaka kepada mandat rakyat untuk PR dalam Pilihanraya Umum 2008.

2. Semua wakil rakyat PR di Pulau Pinang mengecam BN yang membelakangan prinsip demokrasi yang menolak suara rakyat serta menggunakan taktik politik yang kotor dan jijik untuk “membuatkan”empat wakil rakyat PR berpaling tadah.

3. Semua wakil rakyat PR Pulau Pinang mendesak semua pihak di Perak menghormati suara padu dan hasrat bulat rakyat di mana 54% rakyat Perak menolak BN dan memberikan mandat kepada PR merintah Perak dalam Pilihanraya Umum 2008 dengan membubarkan Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak untuk mengembalikan kuasa kepada rakyat Perak menentukan nasib dan masa depan mereka.

4. Menuntut satu undang-undang anti-lompat parti digubal agar mandat rakyat dan budaya demokrasi dtegakkan dan dipelihara.

5. Mengecam dan mengutuk keras tindak-tanduk Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Timbalan Perdana Menteri Malaysia yang membuka lembaran hitam pemerintahannya sebagai Perdana Menteri dengan manipulasi politik kotor demi mengalihkan perhatian umum ke atas kehilangan sokongan rakyat kepada BN dan beliau dalan Pilihanraya kecil Permatang Pauh dan Kuala Terengganu serta isu-isu kontroversi yang lain.

** Kecaman dan kutukan ini diperakui dan dipersetujui oleh semua ADUN PR Negeri Pulau Pinang termasuk YB Prof P Ramasamy dan YB Sim Tze Tzin yang berada di Kuala Lumpur serta YB Phee Boon Poh yang berada di New Zealand.

Pegawai Kewangan Negeri Dato’ Supiah Bt. Md. Yusof dilantik oleh EXCO Negeri Pulau Pinang untuk menyandang Pemangku Yang di Pertua MPSP semasa En. Farizan bin Darus bercuti sehingga 31 Disember 2008. Saya datang bersama dengan Ahli EXCO untuk Kerajaan Tempatan, Pengurusan Lalulintas dan Alam Sekitar Chow Kon Yeow untuk menyaksikan upacara angkat sumpah Dato’ Supiah, yang akan diminta menjalankan siasatan bebas tentang pengurusan kewangan MPSP yang menyebabkan skendal kehilangan rizab MPSP sebanyak RM 223.7 juta dalam tempoh masa 9 tahun.

Daripada lebihan Kumpulan Wang Baki sebanyak RM 230.1 juta pada 1.1.2000 dan tinggal hanya RM 6.4 juta pada 31.12.2008, di antara faktor utama kehilangan RM 223.7 juta dalam tempoh masa 9 tahun adalah seperti berikut:-
• Peruntukan kawasan sebanyak RM 50.3 juta kepada ADUN BN di Seberang Perai dan RM 8.6 juta kepada ahli-ahli MPSP menjadi keseluruhannya RM 59 juta wang MPSP digunakan sebagai politik wang;
• Terus membina Ibupejabat MPSP sebanyak RM 84.3 juta di Bandar Perda tanpa tender terbuka kepada Syarikat Aseania Development Sdn. Bhd(ADSB) sungguhpun pilihan lebih murah wujud bila kerajaan negeri memperuntukkan sebidang tanah seluas 30 ekar di Ampang Jajar; dan
• Penyelenggaraan sistem hawa dingin dengan kos mahal kepada Aseania Linear District Cooling System Sdn. Bhd.

Siasatan bebas yang akan dijalankan oleh Dato’ Supiah akan dilaporkan kepada kerajaan negeri. Laporan kedudukan kewangan MPSP seperti berikut:-

“Bajet MPSP bagi tahun 2008 telah diluluskan dengan defisit sebanyak RM19.54 juta. Bagi tahun 2008 anggaran pendapatan adalah sebanyak RM148 juta manakala anggaran perbelanjaan adalah sebanyak RM167.55 juta. Kedudukan kewangan MPSP sehingga 13 November 2008 adalah seperti berikut :

MPSP bagi Bajet 2009 tidak memperuntukkan wang untuk perbelanjaan pembangunan. Ia akan dipohon daripada Kerajaan Persekutuan. Langkah-langkah yang dinyatakan akan diteruskan malah akan dikemaskan lagi mulai akhir tahun ini bagi menjamin pertambahan pendapatan.”

Dengan defisit 2009 sebanyak RM 15.5 juta, ia akan menyusahkan prestasi kewangan MPSP yang telah susut pada 1.1.2000 sebanyak RM 230.1 juta kepada RM 6.5 juta pada akhir tahun 2008 seperti berikut:-

Daripada lebihan Kumpulan Wang Baki sebanyak RM 230.1 juta pada 1.1.2000 dan tinggal hanya RM 6.4 juta pada 31.12.2008, di antara faktor utama kehilangan RM 223.7 juta dalam tempoh masa 9 tahun adalah seperti berikut:-

· Peruntukan kawasan sebanyak RM 50.3 juta kepada ADUN BN di Seberang Perai dan RM 8.6 juta kepada ahli-ahli MPSP menjadi keseluruhannya RM 59 juta wang MPSP digunakan sebagai politik wang;

· Terus membina Ibupejabat MPSP sebanyak RM 84.3 juta di Bandar Perda sungguhpun pilihan lebih murah wujud bila kerajaan negeri memperuntukkan sebidang tanah seluas 30 ekar di Ampang Jajar.

· Penyelenggaraan sistem hawa dingin dengan kos mahal.

Kerajaan baru tidak mengikuti amalan BN menggunakan wang MPSP sebagai wang politik kepada ADUN dan ahli MPSP.

Mengikut laporan MPSP, Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang yang bermesyuarat pada 28 Februari 2001 dan disahkan pada 7 Mac 2001 telah meluluskan pembinaan Ibu Pejabat Baru, MPSP di Bandar Perda, Permatang Rotan secara rundingan terus “Design and Build” dengan Aseania Development Sdn. Bhd. (ADSB) iaitu pemaju Bandar Perda. Adakah Datuk Dr Teng telah cuba menyalahkan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim demi mengelakkan daripada jawab soalan mengapakan kontrak pembinaan diberikan kepada ADSB tanpa tender terbuka? Bukti bahawa Datuk Seri Anwar yang mengarahkan ibupejabat dibina di Bandar Perda dan bukannya Ampang Jajar masih dinantikan.

Dalam penyiapan pembinaan bangunan, kemudahan hawa dingin adalah disambung kepada “district cooling system” seperti terdapat di dalam perjanjian bertarikh 1 November 2002. Tidak ada penghawa dingin dipasang dengan sendirinya oleh MPSP. Sistem penghawa dingin direkabentuk secara sambungan kepada “district cooling system” seperti mana kemudahan yang ada di pejabat-pejabat kerajaan di Putrajaya.

Perjanjian “Chilled Water Supply Agreement” dengan pembekal iaitu Aseania Linear District Cooling System Sdn. Bhd. telah ditandatangani pada 15 Disember 2005. Diantara syarat-syarat perjanjian tersebut ialah

i. Bekalan semasa ialah untuk tempoh 10 tahun iaitu sehingga tahun 2015

ii. Lanjutan adalah bagi tempoh 5 tahun

iii. Kadar semasa bayaran adalah 0.548 sen per ton hour

iv. Kadar bayaran adalah tertakluk kepada kenaikan tarif letrik dan air dan sebarang kenaikan tarif ini akan mengubah kadar bayaran semasa.

Syarat-syarat begitu menfaatkan syarikat diberikan selama 10 tahun sehingga 2015 dengan lanjutan lagi 5 tahun susah diterima oleh rakyat. Sehingga kini bayaran bulanan untuk perkhidmatan hawa dingin bagi Ibu Pejabat Baru, MPSP di Bandar Perda bagi tahun 2008 adalah seperti beikut:-

Adalah diharapkan skendal kehilangan wang rizab MPSP sebanyak RM 223.7 juta dilihat dengan serius supaya kelemahan-kelemahan boleh diatasi dan sekiranya ada penyalahgunaan kuasa dan penyelewengan maka tindakan sewajarnya diambil. Oleh itu, kerajaan negeri mahukan fakta bukannya fitnah, rasional keputusan dibuat bukannya emosi dan prinsip yang ditegakkan bukannya prejudis sesuatu pihak.

Datuk Dr Teng harus jawab mengapa kontrak pembinaan diberikan tanpa tender terbuka dan kontrak penyelenggaraan penghawa dingin dengan kos tinggi. Beliau harus jawab berdasarkan fakta, rasional dan prinsip beliau meluluskannya dan adakah ia berkepentingan awam?

Details of Seberang Perai Municipal Council’s (MPSP) shocking RM 223.7 million losses in reserve funds over nine years from 2000 to 2008 are revealed together with significant development expenditures. The public shall judge whether such expenditures benefited public interest or is just another sad example of BN’s cronyism, mismanagement and money politics. From an accumulated surplus of RM 230.1 million at 1.1.2000 to only a budgeted surplus of only RM 6.4 mllion at 31.12.2008, RM 223.7 million has been lost over 9 years.

Penang Gerakan chairman Datuk Dr Teng Hock Nan. who is also former state local government and traffic management committee chairman, claimed that the money was used for major and small local community projects to benefit the people such as:

· cleanliness campaigns, anti-mosquitoe programmes and landscaping,

· building of two big markets in Kepala Batas and Kampung Baru, Bukit Mertajam,

· multi-purpose hall in Butterworth, two modern sports complexes in Kepala Batas and Jalan Betik, Bukit Mertajam,

· acquisition of land for infrastructure development, building sanitary landfill in Pulau Burung, Seberang Perai Selatan (SPS) due to closing of dumping site at Ampang Jajar; and

· extra expenditure on house-to-house collection of solid wastes from thrice weekly to four times a week.

The public shall judge whether MPSP spent its money prudently and built according to specifications, whether these projects were necessary and if so whether they achieved their purpose. More importantly, is the question whether a cheaper alternative could be found such as the RM 84.3 million spent on building the new MPSP headquarters in Bandar Perda despite the state government having allocated to MPSP a 30 acre site in Ampang Jajar.

Other contentious items are the “constituency funding” of RM 50.3 million ( RM 300,000 yearly given to each BN ADUN in Seberang Perai) and MPSP councillors(RM 8.6 million) amounting to RM 59 million which is no different from money politics as the roads are still filled with potholes and drains blocked. Also the RM 70,000 per month or over RM 800,000 spent per year on air-conditioning charges of the MPSP HQ to a company given without open public tender.

Clearly MPSP’s coffers were depleted by wasteful and irresponsible spending that only benefited the few cronies of BN at the expense of the general public. If Datuk Dr Teng Hock Nan is willing to support the Penang state government principles of CAT(Competence,Accountability and Transparency), he should explain the necessity of these contentious items such as the expensive MPSP headquarters and other buildings, the cost-effectiveness and benefits of RM 59 million in funds used at the discretion of BN ADUNs and MPSP Councillors as well as the over-priced bills for air-condtioning of the MPSP HQ.

Net profits from Maybank for the first quarter ended Sept 30, 2008 (1QFY09) fell by 22.2% to RM572.17 million from RM 735.4 million a year earlier. Amongst two key factors for the 22% drop:

· reversal of its RM193 million foreign exchange gain reported last year in relation to the purchase of BII;

· impairment losses of RM242 million in its associate company, Pakistan’s MCB Bank Ltd.

Loan loss provision was 192.2 million ringgit compared to 108.1 million ringgit a year ago mainly due to the lower specific allowance written back. This may be insufficient as the over-priced purchase of the two foreign banks by Maybank at almost double the value has caused instant losses of at least RM 5 billion.

If there is a RM 5 billion loan provision, this will wipe out Maybank’s profits for two years and demonstrates the lack of professionalism and due diligence carried out by Maybank’s management in deciding to purchase the two banks at such a high price. By stubbornly proceeding with the purchase, Maybank has dealt a blow not only to its reputation and standing but also undermined foreign investors’ confidence in the credibility of our financial markets.