Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Open Tenders

PERMATANG PAUH asked the prime minister to elaborate on the Government's commitment in implementing an open tender system as announced by the Prime Minister on achieving his 100 days in office as the Prime Minister; and the type and justification of projects which exceed RM10 million above which are still being negotiated through direct negotiation or close tender basis after surpassing the above days.

The Prime Minister responded by providing various reason why open tenders were not held and in many instances only local companies were qualified. I'll need to confirm the statistics again in the Hansard, when it gets updated, but he mentioned that 38% of Government projects above RM10m were concluded via direct negotiations. More details are probably needed as to whether this percentage is calculated by quantity or value of these projects.

The Prime Minister also gave the view that local companies need to be given protection and in certain instances, specific expertise was required, hence the "direct negotiations" approach.

I had my supplementary question prepared, but as expected, due to "seniority" didn't get my chance to ask (the only supplementary question allowed). My boss from BAGAN got the opportunity instead, and asked about the lack of open tenders and the impact on corruption.

Anyway, here was my supplementary question, had I had the opportunity:
Kenapa projek jambatan Pulau Pinang kedua diluluskan secara runding terus tanpa open tender walaupun saiz projek tersebut amat besar?

Dan yang lebih penting - kenapa projek tersebut diluluskan dan diberi kepada syarikat berkaitan SEBELUM harga kontrak dan hargan pembinaan ditetapkan dan ditentukan, yang menyebabkan kos jambatan kerap naik dari RM2.5b sehingga RM3.5b sehingga kini RM4.3b dan ada berita bahawa pihak kontraktor meminta sebanyak RM4.8b?


SOP said...

CIMB Group CEO Dato Nazir Razak : “My worry is that when the government is trying so hard to help the Bumiputeras, it may hamper and undermine their future and achievements. When you give them contracts and money easily, you are actually undermining the spirit of entrepreneurship.”

Perhaps it could be the quote of the year !)

Unknown said...

Tony, you are asking the question that I wanted to ask. I hope somehow it has answers. Actually, when Abdullah takes over from Mahathir in 2003, the cost of building the Second Penang Bridge is just RM2billion. He rejected the proposal at that time reason being not enough money to build. If he has gone on with the building of second penang bridge at that time with proper implementation(open tender, transparency, etc) we would have that bridge perhaps 80% completed by now at a much lower cost.

Carling said...


You should also asked why the Govt chose the longest route , instead of a shorter route which will only costs RM2B, as published in The Edge recently?
The main objective of the bridge to provide access to the mainland and island ,not to benefit land speculators. The fact that Patrick Lim, a family friend of the PM can buy raw lands on the mainland and suddenly the bridge starts there smelt of corruption and insider trading. An internatianal open tender would have silenced all the critics but I guess someone is not gonna get his gold leaves on his nasi lemak . If MM can instruct open international tender for KLIA packages ( something which I respected highly ), why cant this huge project do the same? Guess he is more "hungry" or his SIL is more "hungry".........

Blog Shooter said...

Yes such issue should bring into parliment becoz really a big issue , i think the PM really not sleep enuf the open tender can ensure that the efficiency of work and competitiveness, this round your blog sound much more better, at least your word impress, not like this sucker jeff Ooi everyday crizise using personal attack, what Lim Si Pin is See Pinned, what desperate housewife all this is suck, tony i tot u are jeff Ooi friend, pls make sure he is aware that he is already a MP, must perform like MP no more opposition talk, or he want to take over Lim Guan Eng Place

Anonymous said...


My gosh, what kind of government we have... one that said they are performing and they are reforming... but actually they are not moving at all....

We are talking about globalisation...competition is from all over the world and the fittest survive....

Here..we still have this kind of tender system that was only happening during the dinosaurs era...

COme on.... UMNOsaurs.... wake up....


yapchongyee said...


I refer to the High Court at Kuala Lumpur Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ; Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd and to the adjudicating Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, of said Petition. According to CHARGES made by one Yap Chong Yee husband of Petitioner Lim Choi Yin, Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had 1st approved all 6 Respondents’ application for security for costs in the sum of Rm.60,000 and upon payment of said security for costs of said Rm.60,000, Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali followed up the receipt of said Rm.60,000 by the approval to Respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban a 2nd and subsequent application by Respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban for an Order to strike out said Petition.

The second and subsequent Application for an order to strike out said Petition was made even without there being any court order for the SETTING ASIDE of the 1st order for securing said Rm/60,000 for security for costs pursuant to the 1st order made by Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. That being the facts of the case my question directed to the attention of the Malaysian Attorney General Tan Seri……. Are the following :

(1)Was not the conduct of Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s approval of Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s 2nd and subsequent application to strike out said Petition, while the said cash of Rm60,000 security for costs was still held in the hands of all 6 respondents to the petition, pursuant to the order made by Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to petitioner to provide security for costs constitute ABUSE OF POWER ?
Will the Attorney General investigate Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for the criminal charge of ABUSE OF POWER & MALFEASANCE and will the Attorney General, if upon investigation find that sufficient evidence exist to support a criminal Charge against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for abuse of power and/or FOR MALFEASANCE proceed to lay criminal charges against Judge Zainon for a criminal prosecution ?

(2)Is it not the case that while Respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban and the other 5 respondents hold on to the security for costs pursuant to Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s order to Petitioner to provide security for costs and in the absence of any Order to set aside the 1st Order for security for costs, the conduct of Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali together with the conduct of the 6 respondents IN TAKING AND KEEPING SAID RM.60,000 not amount to committing the criminal offence of obtaining money under false pretences ? And further, do the facts not indicate that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali together with the 6 respondents had acted with a common intention to induce Petitioner to pay said Rm.60,000 while not intending that upon payment of said Rm.60,000 THERE WILL BE A COURT TRIAL OF SAID PETITION ? The being the case do the facts not constitute a conspiracy to obtain money under false pretences ? The facts speak for themselves as an investigation will prove.
Will the Attorney General investigate said 2 police reports and if the investigation give up facts that will support criminal charges against the said parties, will the Attorney General lay criminal charges against such persons ?
Petitioner’s husband Yap Chong Yee had formally filed 2 police reports at the Balai Polis Jln. Tun H S Lee, in the first police report Yap Chong Yee had CHARGED the respondents Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen and Kwong Sea Yoon with PERJURY, for having lied in their supporting affidavits applying for security for costs.
In the second police report Yap Chong Yee had Charged Stephen Lim Cheng Ban with FORGERY, PERJURY AND FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE, contained in his supporting affidavits applying for leave to strike out said petition.
Both police reports were annexed to Petitioner’s affidavits as exhibits supporting Petitioner’s application for leave to cross examine said 3 respondents for PERJURY & FORGERY and both of Petitioner’s applications were refused leave to cross examine said Respondents, by Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. The refusal by Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to allow Petitioner leave to cross examine Respondent Stephen Lim and made in the face of the existence of 2 FORMAL POLICE REPORTS THAT CHARGED STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN with Perjury & forgery constitutes the charge of MALFEASANCE, AIDING & ABETTING Stephen Lim Cheng Ban to commit the criminal offences of PERJURY & FORGERY.
Will the Attorney General investigate these criminal charges that are made against Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and if sufficient evidence is uncovered that will support criminal charges, will the Attorney General prefer criminal charges against Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali; will the attorney General formally charge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali with the said criminal offences ?

Anonymous said...

As usual, lies, lies . lies all the way!!

Anonymous said...

Hi Tony,

Just want to thank you for the news coverage in Malaysia. You and other bloggers made it very accessible for Malaysians abroad to keep up with what's happening. Cheers!