Wednesday, August 04, 2010

PKFZ - Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik (2)

The Government's process is straight forward.

If a particular Ministry wants to get opinions on any finance related matters, the Ministry can write to the Finance Ministry together with any appendices attached as well as their own analysis.

The Ministry concerned can also write to the Finance Ministry on behalf of the agencies/corporations/councils under their jurisdiction and portfolio on any finance related matters.

Just to add, annual budgets by the agencies must also be submitted to both the Ministry concerned and the Finance Ministry.

In the first place, when the matter has been evaluated by say, the Transport Ministry, the Minister will then pass it on to the Finance Ministry.



Once the Finance Ministry completes its own evaluation of the case and a comprehensive review of the recommendations/comments attached by the Transport Ministry, they will write back to the Transport Ministry.

Several people will know, or at least one of them, about this matter somewhere along the lines. Who?

  • Finance Minister I / Finance Minister II

  • Deputy Finance Minister I / Deputy Finance Minister II;

  • Ketua Setiausaha Perbendaharaan (KSP); and

  • Valuation Division Under Secretary (SUB).

If Tun Dr Ling is charged for having hoodwinked the Cabinet and not following the Finance Ministry evaluation, why didn't the above mentioned senior civil servants or political leaders of the Finance Ministry raise the issue during the Cabinet meeting ?



If not during that time, what about the post Cabinet meeting of the Finance Ministry ? No one brought it up at all at that time ? I am surprised.

For the case to proceed, I believe the following documents are necessary to be declassified and presented in Court:

  • the Division meeting minutes of both Ministry during that period

  • the post Cabinet meeting minutes of both Ministry during that period

  • the Cabinet meeting minutes of the date Tun Dr Ling was charged for misleading the Cabinet on this matter

  • all PKFZ related files in both Ministries


The people that should be required to testify in Court will surely be the senior civil servants and political leaders at that time which include:


FROM THE FINANCE MINISTRY (MOF)
  • Finance Minister I / Finance Minister II

  • Deputy Finance Minister I / Deputy Finance Minister II;

  • Ketua Setiausaha Perbendaharaan (KSP); and

  • Valuation Division Under Secretary (SUB) / Director (Pengarah).

FROM THE TRANSPORT MINISTRY (MOT)
  • Transport Minister

  • Deputy Transport Minister

  • Ketua Setiausaha (KSU) Kementerian Pengangkutan

  • MOT Under Secretaries (SUB-SUB) tasked to manage and monitor the project

This is gonna be an interesting case which will even overshadow Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy trial that seemed to be postponed from time to time for gazillion times. We shall let the Court decide. Let this be judged in a legal Court and not the public court of opinions.

All are innocent until proven guilty and all have the right to be heard in Court.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

All are innocent until proven guilty

Not necessary true in saman ekor.

katdog said...

Not to worry. Ling Liong Sik will get off scott free. Because we all know who the real masterminds of the PKFZ scandal are.

This is just for show and LLS will be acquitted because there won't be enough evidence against him. And that is the honest truth. There really is not enough evidence against him as he is not the mastermind. Just the puppet only.

It is just like a certain mongolian model's murder trial. RB acquitted as he honestly was not the person who ordered the murder. Yet courts have closed the case as if justice has already been done. Who were the real culprits who ordered the mongolian models death? we will never know but we can make a pretty good educated guess that it was probably powerful well connected people.

katdog said...

"All are innocent until proven guilty and all have the right to be heard in Court."

Yes how true.

But why is it in Malaysian courts the accused have to prove their innocence to the authorities instead of the other way round.

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy I trial in which Anwar was pronounced guilty because he could not provide an alibi when the fact was that the authorities had charged him for committing a crime at a nonexistent building at that time. In a proper court of law, the charge would have been thrown out without even a defence needed to be called as obviously you can't be defending against committing a crime at a place that does not exist.

How about ISA where many accused are denied their day to defend themselves in court? So all have the right to be heard in court except those SUSPECTED/ACCUSED of being a threat to national security?