Why is DAP top brass not dispelling MCA’s claim of 31 firms denied opp to bid for transit system project?
I AM shocked to hear that if an open tender had been called by the Transport Ministry and the Selangor state government for the direct responsive transit (DRT) pilot project, about 31 companies would have qualified including some big names.
Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy, Focus Malaysia
I AM shocked to hear that if an open tender had been called by the Transport Ministry and the Selangor state government for the direct responsive transit (DRT) pilot project, about 31 companies would have qualified including some big names.
This goes against the argument of the Asia Mobility Technologies Sdn Bhd co-founder Premesh Chandran who was also the former Malaysiakini CEO that other companies could not match the state-of-art technology of Asia Mobility.
If an open tender had been called in keeping with the governance principles of the Pakatan Harapan (PH)-led government, there would not have been controversy over the project.
In fact, an open tender process would have saved the Selangor state government money even to the extent of not having to subsidise the project.
Moreover, the presence of cronies and family members would have been eliminated in the process of an open tender.
It was the absence of an open tender that made it possibly for Asia Mobility’s co-founder and CEO Ramachandran Muniandy to obtain the DRT award for the pilot project.
Many other qualified candidates
It is common knowledge that Ramachandran is the husband of Youth and Sports Minister Hannah Yeoh.
Even if Yeoh had no influence in the award of the transport project to Asia Mobility, the perception of favouritism or nepotism would have reared its ugly head.
The founders of Asia Mobility can argue at length about merit, competence and technological superiority but such arguments are not effective in nullifying why there was no open tender and why a family member or husband of a minister was involved.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has after some reluctance opened an investigation on the direct award of the DRT project to Asia Mobility and co-project awardee Badanbas Coach Sdn Bhd.
The MACC must first ascertain whether why there was a direct award only to the two companies. What were so special about them and whether there were no other companies qualified.
If there were other qualified companies, then an open tender should have been called for. So, why did the Transport Ministry and the Selangor state government failed to call for an open tender considering that there were more than two companies qualified for the DRT project?
A related question is whether there was bias on the part of Transport Ministry and Selangor state government to award the project only to these two companies?
If there were more companies, why was the open tender system not adopted?
Anthony Loke’s deafening silence
Alternatively, has the direct award to Asia Mobility and Badanbas Coach in any way denied opportunities to other companies? These are some of the things that the MACC should look into.
What was so special of these two companies? Why were they preferred over the others? Was it because they had superior technology that others lacked?
However, latest ground information suggests that there were other companies in the public transport sector that have similar level of technology.
Prima facie-wise, there is a case for the MACC to probe deeper. Investigating means going before the media reports. Transport Minister Anthony Loke Siew Fook and the Selangor state EXCO Ng Tze Han – both from DAP – must be thoroughly investigated.
Even though Ng sought to defend the award of the project to the two companies, Loke has not said anything. Why is he silent?
Why is he refraining from defending the DRT award to the two companies? Maybe, Loke should decide whether to re-name DAP as the “Direct Award Party”.
Loke’s deafening silence makes a mockery of the open tender system that was religiously pursued by his party before.
