Shocking – Lim Guan Eng’s House of Cards (Part 1: Taman Manggis)
The Third Force
Readers are advised to read part 1, which accentuates aspects pertaining to the Taman Manggis land scam controversy. The purpose of this part is to establish a basis to the contention that some deals may have been negotiated through the kitchen door by Lim Guan Eng’s administration. Part 2 deals with the Penang International Sports Arena (PISA) controversy and is propped against the premise established in part 1.
Taman Manggis revisited…
Here’s the thing about the Chief Minister (CM) of Penang, Lim Guan Eng – not only is he cocky, he’s self-centred and every bit as despotic as they say he is. Meaning, he absolutely needs to have control over everyone in his administration and everything he does.
Following the 2008 general elections and just over a month into office, he had this to say:
“As chief of staff, my duties include gathering and analysing intelligence reports, coordinating party matters, government duties and the civil service and planning investment and tourism directions for the state. Mainly, my job involves handling backroom issues and lending my brain power.”
He laughed.
But much of that gay facade has since faded. Today, we’re looking at a very different Lim Guan Eng – the 2016 version is dark and sour, perhaps after being battered black and blue by the media over a bungalow-for-land scam controversy that just doesn’t seem to want to go away.
Ever since the controversy broke the internet, Guan Eng has been painting his administration with fake colours to make it seem that everything is in proper order. Two weeks ago, he issued a FAQ sheet, insisting that the sale of state land at Taman Manggis was negotiated through an open tender process.
The fact is, it wasn’t. And neither was it the first time the CM had lied about methods that were employed by his administration to procure bids. Late in 2012, he told an assembly of state legislators that parcels of land at Taman Manggis were negotiated through a Request for Proposal (RFP), which he then said was part of an Open Competitive Tender (let’s just call it an OCT).
It is amazing how the CM managed to equate and RFP to an open tender and later, an OCT. But it wouldn’t matter one way or the other – people are lazy to check their facts and likely swallowed his drivel hook, line and sinker.
And that’s how and why the CM has been getting away with murder – he tells everyone that his administration is the perfect embodiment of a competent, accountable and transparent office that advocates open tender processes. But in reality, almost all projects that were carried out under his purview were negotiated through RFP’s.
Which brings me to the point – a Request for Proposal is a Request for Proposal and an open tender is an open tender, and you could get a regular accountant or state councillor to tell you the difference. One involves bidding solicitation, the other doesn’t. It’s just plain and simple, and you can read more about it in a rebuttal of sorts that was posted by Lim Sian See and carried by Malaysia Today here (http:// http://www.malaysia-today.net/cm-lges-faq-on-skandal-banglo-manggis-comprehensively-picked-apart/).
In the case of an OCT, sealed bids are opened for public scrutiny and chosen on the basis of price and quality of service offered. On the other hand, companies that are invited to pitch written bids through an RFP are only guaranteed a seat on the bargaining table and not an award of project or sale. And unlike an OCT, sealed bids or proposals in an RFP are never displayed to the public – it is not warranted.
The last I checked, none of those who tendered bids for Taman Manggis had their proposals displayed in public. It amazes me how the CM, being a certified accountant, failed to give nuances to the various terms when addressing the public or the state assembly. Questions were undoubtedly raised by legislators, though none of them gained mainstream traction.
But here’s the catch – Guan Eng’s ignorance may have been nothing more than role play to divert attention from the fact that Taman Manggis was negotiated differently. It is believed that the successful candidate held seats on both ends of the bargaining table even before the RFP was announced. This is another way of saying that Kuala Lumpur International Dental Centre (KLIDC) – the winning bidder – may have worked with the CM or his office to stiffen the terms of the RFP before the invitation was made public.
In short, the sale of land at Taman Manggis was likely negotiated through a Restricted Request for Proposal (RRFP) and not an RFP (again, you may refer to the link posted above herein – Lim Sian See had mentioned this in his rebuttal). While the method may not constitute as fair, there is no need to roll your eyes or drop your jaws just yet – such manner of solicitation is often found at government level and is used by lobbyists to restrict participation by competitors. And this may come as a surprise to you – it is not illegal.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the CM has been misrepresenting the state government and assembly by giving people the impression that all projects were negotiated through OCT’s or open tenders. They weren’t – most were likely solicited through RRFPs.
Moving on, it is logical to assume that both parties – KLIDC and the CM’s office – had discussed the valuated net asset worth of the land at some point during negotiations. Put another way, the land was transacted far below its market value despite both parties knowing its worth. But that’s just my assumption. What I do know, is that KLIDC had paid a total of RM 10.1 million in premiums on the 21st of October 2011.
Further to that, we have a problem –Guan Eng may be using executive privilege to sit on documents that bear terms jointly agreed upon by both parties. Until and unless he chooses to declassify these documents – which we’re assuming exist, and they should – we’d be shooting in the dark trying to make sense of a deal that seems to be fraught with irregularity, mystery and suspicion.
So the questions remain – why was KLIDC awarded the RFP in 2010 when the audited statements of the company for that year showed negative assets? How could the state government have changed the land use conditions a year post-sales in a manner that was exorbitantly advantageous to KLIDC?
These are among the questions breaking the internet, and Guan Eng seems to be stumbling and fumbling through them with idiotic replies. And while he wades through those questions, he may want to shed some light on the other elephant that’s in his room – the Penang International Sports Arena (PISA) – Eco Meridean concession agreement.
To be continued…
