Mr Chairman, take a bow
By R. Nadeswaran, The Sun
THREE years ago this week we were writing yet another news report on the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) fiasco when we heard the news. “I have not got my letter yet. Let it be official,” he told us. “You must talk to us first,” he was told. Two weeks later, we sat with Datuk Lee Hwa Beng in his first interview as the new chairman of the Port Klang Authority (PKA). Three years on, he’s not leaving or retiring; there is a lot of unfinished business and a lot of things to put in order. But he won’t be there as his term will not be renewed.
The system is such that when political bosses change, so too do people in such positions. The rakyat expect the best man for the job to be appointed to such important positions that are allocated for political party appointees. Hence, Lee appointed by former MCA chief and former transport minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat will have to make way for the appointee of Datuk Seri Kong Cho Ha or his party. Without casting aspersions on the new man, the whole issue with such appointments is that often, you get round pegs in square holes or people who haven’t a clue to the organisation’s operations or objectives.
With no disrespect to anyone and any profession, we have come across forklift drivers, office boys and even railway gatekeepers in positions of power and making decisions on multi-million ringgit deals of which they have no clue. But then, even having professionals in quasi-government agencies has not helped. The PKA board previously comprised experts from various fields like finance, marketing and transport, but as has been previously said, they chose to ignore what was before them as the port regulator bled and ended up on the verge of insolvency.
Lee can look back to his tenure with not only a lot of pride, but also a few regrets. And there’s fear that what Ong and he set out to do, will be dismantled, leaving just the framework as a gentle reminder of their efforts to clean up the mess left behind by predecessors – both political and administrative. How and who is going to account for the final bill of RM12 billion is now a guessing game, with the Treasury making payments (as a loan to and on behalf of the PKA) regularly to the bondholders, while not legally obliged to do so. On paper, PKA is insolvent – a fact which was pointed out as early as 2004 by the auditor-general, which everyone ignored.
The PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) audit report is now history and so are the special reports prepared by PKA lawyers. Two former ministers and the former general manager of the PKA have been charged. But to date, no one knows where the money went. How could billions vanish into thin air without leaving a paper trail?
Overall, Lee had a good innings with Ong as the minister, who from Day One had insisted that the PwC report be made public. The setting up of the whistle-blowing mechanism and appointing three “independent” board members gave PKA some credibility, but then again, the non-renewal of Datuk M. Rajasingam’s tenure sent out the wrong message – the Transport Ministry wants “yes men” – it does not want expertise.
Many believe Lee is paying the price for being forthright and sometimes outspoken on PKFZ issues. Perhaps, the powers-that-be expected him to be passive and ignore the mounting problems that have afflicted the PKA since the project was conceived in 1999. Perhaps, it was expected of him to be docile and subservient to political masters, which often prevents people from carrying out their duties and responsibilities.
What would Hwa Beng’s report card read like? Overall, it could have been “A” with some reservations. The failure of the PKA board to act against previous directors for dereliction of duty is one example. Even then, he has a plausible explanation – the board voted not to act. But then again, while Lee focused on the PKFZ, the demand to Westports to remit to the PKA port dues running into millions which it had been collecting is worth mentioning.
However, other areas of administration where there had been abuse and misuse of power was only touched on the surface. In the files of the PKA are documents which will show how it departed from its principal role as a port regulator and diverted its energies and resources to unproductive and costly ventures.
A week from now, Lee who is often teased and referred to as an “ex-politician” will have yet another moniker – “ex-chairman”. He can look back and tell himself that he gave it the best shot and got the best possible results considering the constraints he had worked under. Whether his successor will continue to push for good governance and expose all the skeletons in the cupboard will be mere speculation. For the sake of transparency and accountability, it may be appropriate at this juncture to suggest that a competent and independent person with no political affiliation be appointed. He or she must not only be knowledgeable but also a person with the highest level of integrity. Why do we need to see politics even in regulating the port?
