Press Statement by MCA Youth CC member Ding Keng Long on Dato’ Wee Ka Siong’s Links with Dato’ Seri Tiong King Sing
I refer to Deputy Education Minister Dato’ Dr Wee Ka Siong’s recent media statements regarding the involvement of his ex-company, Hijau Sekitar Sdn Bhd, with another company linked to Dato’ Seri Tiong King Sing of the PKFZ fame. I find many inconsistencies in his statements and far from clearing up the controversy, Wee’s explanation has only served to further confuse MCA members and the public. They also raise doubts over his assertion that he and Tiong are not in cahoots.
By Ding Keng Long
Among the inconsistent / doubtful statements are:
1) During a media conference on Christmas eve last year, Wee had said that Hijau Sekitar, in which he used to own sizeable shares, had indeed done work for Wijaya Baru Sdn Bhd (Tiong’s company) for free. But within a week or so, Wee retracted by saying that he had never said he did pro bono work.
Which is which? If he was misquoted in the media, what took him so long to come out to clarify on a contentious issue? Didin’t he know that by keeping quiet, he had only helped fuel speculations that he and Tiong were in fact very close to the extent that his company could do work for free?
2) Wee had said that the foreign consultants who jointly did the feasibility study with him for Tiong’s company were reimbursed. If so, did Wee fork out the money on his own or did Wijaya Baru pay the consultants? If he had paid the consultants on his own accord, why did he do so? Does he have a stake in the project, had it been approved by the Ministry of Transport?
3) Wee had said in media reports that Hijau Sekitar, like doctors, do not choose clients. I find that preposterous because the cash-flushed Tiong and Wijaya Baru is not your typical walk-in client. As a seasoned politician, surely Wee knew that Tiong is a central figure in the Port Klang Free Zone. Besides, the feasibility study undertaken by the five consultants led by Wee involved a long-term project for a new port facility. Surely, a lot of in-depth discussions had taken place prior to coming up with the report, especially considering the fact that Tiong is well-versed in port-related matters, having developed the PKFZ next door.
Hence, I think Wee is not only insulting the public by saying that Tiong is a walk-in client, he has also demeaned Tiong, by likening the Bintulu MP and jet-setting tycoon as a run-of-the-mill client.
4) Wee had failed to answer why he had earlier denied having done work with a company linked to Tiong, as contained in an interview with The Sun newspaper on October 30, 2009. Wee had then said that the burden of proof was not on him. Now that a link has been proven, what has he got to say now? Why can’t he be a gentleman and said that he had made a mistake by denying his earlier links with Tiong?
Now, Wee is saying that he is not involved in PKFZ, much less its gigantic financial scandal. Is he prepared to say that the onus is on the accusers to prove? What would he say if there there is evidence to prove the accusers right? Would he be man enough to admit his mistakes then?
5) What about his denial in the New Straits Times on Dec 31, 2009 that none of his staff had ever worked for Tiong. If someone can show documented evidence to prove Wee wrong, would he be honourable enough to retract and apologise?
6) Wee had said that the project he did for Tiong had nothing to do with PKFZ. But surely as lead consultant, he knows that the project is located adjacent to the controversial PKFZ. Is he saying that as lead consultant, he could come up with a proposal for a new port without having an in-depth knowledge of PKFZ, which is located next door?
Is he saying that issues like PKFZ’s fundamentals, potential and some of the proposed massive infrastructural work there have no bearings on his proposal? Was Wee privvy to the planned infrastructural work in PKFZ? Was Wee or Tiong – or both – hoping to piggy-back on the Government’s massive investment in roads, telecommunications and other amenities in PKFZ?
7) If it’s true that Wee was indeed close to Tiong (which is not wrong at all, legally), did Wee provide any input to the Wijaya Baru boss on the feasibility of PKFZ, in the same manner he came up with a proposal to study the “feasibility of a new port facility” in Mukim Jugra Selangor in 2005?
The above points / questions are not mine alone, but are burning issues that hang over the minds of the MCA grassroots. They had come to me hoping that I could escalate their concerns and doubts openly.
It is now imperative for Wee to come clean once and for all and clear the doubts of the grassroots. As a public leader, MCA Youth head and Deputy Minister, the grassroots demand an explanation. They do not want to see more party leaders entangled in the PKFZ mess.
Ding Keng Long 陈逞龙
MCA YOUTH CC MEMBER马青中委
COMMITTEE MEMBER OF MCA PERAK STATE LIAISON马华霹雳州联委会委员
CHAIRMAN OF MCA YOUTH BRUAS DIVISION马青木威区团团长
