DAP’s Wanita chief Teo Nie Ching (main pic, left) seems to have risen to the occasion to defend her comrade Hannah Yeoh – the Youth and Sports Minister and Segambut MP (main pic, right) – against my call for her or her husband Ramachandran Muniandy – the CEO of Asian Mobility Technologies Sdn Bhd – to resign.
My concern was about the involvement of Yeoh’s husband in obtaining the award on a transport-related project in Selangor on the basis of direct negotiations.
Both the Selangor state government and the related federal agency under the Transport Ministry have given the nod for Asian Mobility and another company called Badanbas Coach Sdn Bhd to undertake the project.
The award of the contract to these companies became mired in controversy because the much-valued open tender system was ignored.
Alternatively, it was through direct negotiations that the two companies were awarded the project for the implementation of a direct responsive transit system (DRT).
Not only was the open tender system ignored, the family link between the CEO Ramachandran and Yeoh has aggravated the situation.
Ramachandran’s involvement in Asian Mobility raised questions whether there were elements of nepotism, cronyism and favouritism.
Misplaced analogy
Even if Yeoh had no role in influencing the decision in favour of Asian Mobility, speculations and doubts about the fairness of the decision are bound to arise.
This is why I felt that either Yeoh or the husband need to resign for the sake of transparency and good governance.
However, Teo who is also the Kulai MP pointed out that I did not raise questions or asked former Penang chief minister Lim Guan Eng and currently DAP chairman to resign when he was charged for corruption.
It was not that I was then part of DAP or was the state’s deputy chief minister II that I did not want to offend Lim.
Such a comment on the part of Teo reveals her immaturity and irresponsibility as the DAP’s Wanita Chief and current Deputy Communications Minister in the Madani government.
Lim was charged in the court of law and the trial is on-going at the moment. It was best the matter was left to the court to decide whether Lim is guilty or not. As far as I am concerned, there was no double-standard on my part.
How was it possible for me to ask for Lim’s resignation when he is not found guilty in the first place? It would be interesting to know that why Teo is using the example of Lim’s case against me. Is this intended to embarrass me or Lim?
I still believe that Ramachandran did not use his family link to Yeoh to procure the transit project from the Selangor state government.
I am also not questioning the capability of the individuals in the Asian Mobility or that Yeoh might have had a role in the award of the project.
If an open tender system had been used, there was no way for allegations of nepotism, cronyism and favouritism to emerge in the first place.
While it was fine for Teo to come to the blind defence of Yeoh or her husband, she never cared to say anything why the open tender system was not used in the first place.
Teo should not forget that the open tender system was the mantra of DAP. Unless of course she thinks that the direct negotiations are better way to award government projects. If this is true, then the DAP should be called “Direct Award Party”.
In conclusion, I would like to say that DAP leaders are in no position of pointing out double and triple standards of others, including Teo. The party’s hypocrisy and double standards are too well-known to be amplified any further.
Former DAP stalwart and Penang chief minister II Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy is chairman of the United Rights of Malaysian Party (Urimai) interim council.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.
- Focus Malaysia
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.