http://dapmalaysia.org
|
LKS forgives Keng Yaik for his false and baseless accusation against me for “fear-mongering” in alleging that his Ministry was “nationalizing” the water services industry although the 48-hour ultimatum for him to produce the proof has expired as public interest is more important than personal feuds Speech by Lim Kit Siang at the water forum -organized by the Coalition Against Water Privatisation (CAWP) (Wisma Ehsan, Ipoh, Saturday): I held a media conference in Parliament on Monday challenging the Minister for Energy, Water and Communications Datuk Seri Dr. Lim Keng Yaik to produce within 48 hours proof to substantiate his allegation in Ipoh the previous day that I was guilty of “fear-mongering” in confusing and scaring the people that the government was embarking on the “nationalization” of the water services industry. I said that if Keng Yaik could produce proof that I had ever used the word “nationalisation” to describe his Ministry’s efforts to restructure the national water services industry, whether at the parliamentary roundtable on water privatization on 10th June 2005, in my speeches in Parliament or outside, I am prepared to publicly tender him an apology. On the other hand, if Keng Yaik could not produce any proof his substantiate his allegation, meaning that he had been guilty of making a baseless attack on me, he should have the humility to publicly apologise to me. The 48 hours ultimatum expired three days ago on Wednesday and Keng Yaik had not been able to produce any proof that I had ever alleged that his Ministry was embarking on “nationalization” of the water industry services, for the simple reason that I had never uttered the word even once in the discussion on the issue. I can pursue the issue further to demand that Keng Yaik should be gentleman enough to own up to his error or he has no credibility whatsoever as a political leader and Cabinet Minister – but I have decided to forgive Keng Yaik for his false and baseless accusation against me for “fear-mongering” in alleging that the government was embarking on “nationalization” of water services. Keng Yaik has accused me of “fear-mongering” by using three terms to confuse and frighten the people about his Ministry’s current exercise to restructure the water services industry - “federalization”, ”privatization” and “nationalization”. I had never used the word “nationalization” but I admit using the terms “federalization” and “privatization”, and I stand by these two terms. I do not deny using the words “federalization” and “privatization” to describe the Minister’s current exercise to restructure the national water services industry – as I am only following Keng Yaik’s example, who was the first to talk about the “federalization” and “privatization” of the national water services in the country. In his keynote address to the FOMCA public forum on “Is Malaysia Ready for privatization of water resources” in Petaling Jaya on 31st July 2004, Keng Yaik not only did not object to the theme of “water privatization”, but went to great length to explain why “Privatisation can play a vital role in rejuvenating the water industry” despite the many weaknesses of the government’s water privatization policy highlighted by the privatization of water services of some states, mostly through concessions. He said: “7. Hence, we have to re-examine and evaluate the current privatization of the water industry so as to avoid similar fate suffered by future water privatization projects. The Government has decided to review the existing water privatization model pending its appraisal on how best to improve the performance of the Malaysian water sector that will benefit all parties. This is because the way privatization of water services were carried in the past does not lead to efficiency improvement of the entire industry and thus not sustainable.” After talking about the weaknesses of “current privatization of the water industry so as to avoid similar fate suffered by future water privatization projects”, how can Keng Yaik now turn around and accuse me of “fear-mongering” when I discussed the pros and cons of water privatization? The use of the word “federalization” was also started by Keng Yaik himself. In the same speech, he said: “10. My Ministry is currently working on formulating a blue print to implement the Government’s decision to federalize the water management, revamping the water services industry structure for it to become more sustainable and the setting up of a National Water Services Commission to act as a regulator.” After himself talking about “federalization”, why is Keng Yaik now turning around and accuse me of “fear-mongering’ when I was just following his example to discuss the merits and demerits of federalization of the water management? Many MPs and NGOs have been confused and perplexed by Keng Yaik’s recent stance in publicly denying that his Ministry is proposing a more effective and efficient “privatization” of the water services industry, which was why I asked at the parliamentary roundtable last Friday whether his Ministry is proposing the privatization of the water services industry without using the word “privatisation’! I am actually quite surprised by Keng Yaik’s reaction, for I had publicly commended him twice at the parliamentary roundtable on June 10 on water privatization:
However, while I was prepared to give praise when praise is due, Keng Yaik must have been peeved by the Eight Questions and other issues which I raised at the roundtable questioning his handling of the water portfolio since becoming the Minister in charge, not because they are baseless but because he could not answer them with satisfaction. For example, what are the reasons and conditions for the RM2.9 billion Federal Government funding of the Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor (Syabas) water privatization of Selangor/Kuala Lumpur/Putrajaya which includes a RM1.34 billion bailout of Selangor government water debts when the 30-year concession was signed on December 17 last year? Keng Yaik has also been conspicuously silent on the abuse and distortion of the open tender policy enunciated by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to introduce a new culture of integrity in public life. At the parliamentary roundtable, I produced documentary proof that there was no open tender in the real sense of the term by Syabas for the RM375 million Phase One of pipe-replacement project in the Klang Valley, as there was manipulation and tampering with the tender process. This was because a day before the tender closed on April 26, 2004, Syabas sent to all tenderers the new stipulation designating two companies as obligatory suppliers for pipes and fittings, namely: Laksana Wibawa Sdn. Bhd (for supply of mild steel, ductile iron pipes and fittings) and Musa & Rahman Plastic Industries Sdn. Bhd. (for supply of high density polyethylene [HDPE] pipes and fittings). Both these nominated companies are not only relatively unknown, they raise disturbing questions about the propriety of such last-minute distortion of the tender process by designating companies to be the obligatory suppliers, conflict-of-interest and the background of the designated companies, as Laksana Wibawa, Puncak Niaga and Syabas are believed to have a common factor in Tan Sri Dr. Rozali Ismail, who is executive chairman of both Syabas and Puncak Niaga. Teo did not show any surprise when I produced the documentary evidence and he said the Ministry was fully aware of the facts of the case when I offered to give him a copy of the documentary evidence. But why had Keng Yaik been singularly silent on this abuse and distortion of the open tender process by Syabas, ignoring the call by the Prime Minister only last month for the eradication of three national “addictions”, one of which is rent-seeking. Is Keng Yaik going to lodge a report with the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) against Syabas for such distortion and manipulation of the open tender? Keng Yaik has repeatedly called for transparency as well as the fullest participation by all stakeholders, whether MPs, private sectors, NGOs and the consumers in the restructuring of the national water services industry, but he must “walk the talk” and not “cakap ta serupa bikin”. He must not just talk about consultation but must have the mindset, commitment and patience to make a success of public participation and consultation in the restructuring of water services industry and not expect MPs, including from Barisan Nasional, to continue to be mere “rubber stamps” in Parliament as in the past two decades. Whatever my personal likes and dislikes, I am prepared to continue to engage with Keng Yaik on the issue of the future of water services industry, for the interests of the people and nation and future generations are more important than our personal feuds or political differences.
(18/06/2005)
* |