Public will only get as much accountability as it asks for
By R B Battarcharjee, The Edge
WITH the release of the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report on the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) last week, the public finally has a clear idea of what went wrong in that colossal misadventure that, by PwC’s reckoning, could potentially cost RM12.453 billion.
The list of concerns that the audit firm has unearthed — ranging from “significant project costs, weak governance and weak project management” — is quite staggering in terms of the breakdown of official oversight on a project of national strategic importance.
Indeed, it will remain embalmed in the popular imagination as an example of perhaps a record number of ways that a privatisation deal can deviate from desirable norms. For this reason, the people will certainly be paying close attention to how these flaws are rectified to turn the haemorrhaging project around.
However, there are equally important questions about accountability that need to be asked about the financial and management fiasco. For example, who should answer for the strange way in which decisions involving billions of ringgit were made by the Port Klang Authority (PKA), without referring to the PKA board?
The answer is not as simple as pointing the finger at the general manager or the chairman, whose signatures appear on the documents concerned. This is because the PKA is bound by the terms of the agreements its officials have entered into, and has to honour them, irrespective of how it meets those obligations.
Next, what form should the investigation of wrongdoing in the project take? This question has so far not been addressed by senior government leaders. It is noteworthy that the independence of the inquiry board will be central to the restoration of public confidence in the key institutions of governance in the country.
Thirdly, what changes will be made to the privatisation process to prevent a repeat of the PKFZ debacle? The answer to this telling question will demonstrate the government’s seriousness in correcting the mistakes that have allowed the current disaster to happen.
To address these important issues, it is clear that a great deal of political will is necessary. It is reasonable to assume, given the elevated political stature of the appointees to the PKA board, that the powers-that-be will be unlikely to voluntarily submit to a full investigation of the circumstances that allowed the PKFZ scandal to occur.
For that to happen, therefore, the public must take on a strong activist role in pressing for a full disclosure of this sorry episode. They must speak up for greater accountability, get involved in initiatives to promote good governance and hold their elected representatives to their duty to promote the public interest. They must do so with a firm belief in the vital importance of defending the principles of transparency and integrity in public office.
Unless members of the public are ready to stand up and be counted, they may have to be satisfied with a less-than-desirable conclusion to the current situation. The ball, as the saying goes, is in the people’s court.
