Wee cries foul over RM99 million Tourism Malaysia contract
The former Wangsa Maju MP claims the contract was given to a local company under dubious circumstances, allegations which Tourism Malaysia has denied.
Former Wangsa Maju MP Wee Choo Keong says he will be lodging a report on the matter with MACC. (Bernama pic)
PETALING JAYA: Former Wangsa Maju MP Wee Choo Keong has called on the authorities to look into a promotion contract between Tourism Malaysia and a local company, saying it was given under âdubiousâ circumstances.
Wee, a former Tourism Malaysia chairman, labelled the arrangement a âSpeedy Gonzales contractâ, saying the meeting on the RM99 million, directly negotiated deal as well as the approval and signing of the agreement had taken place within a single day.
Tourism Malaysia director-general Mirza Mohamma d Taiyab has refuted Weeâs allegations and says a detailed statement on the matter will be issued soon.
Speaking to FMT, however, Wee said he had evidence of his claims, some of which had been uploaded on his blog, and that he would be lodging a report with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission soon.
Wee said he believed the local company had acted as a go-between for Tourism Malaysia and Tencent Holdings in China. He said Tourism Malaysia had wanted to promote the country on Tencentâs social media platforms through the local company.
According to Wee, the local company was only formed on Nov 6 last year. He said Tourism Malaysia could have gone directly to Tencent, as it was a much bigger, government-backed entity, rather than a company which had been operating for less than six months.
He said the company had submitted a proposal for its services, and that the tourism ministryâs committee on evaluations and price negotiations (JKPTRH) had me t on the evaluation on April 3.
âThe JKPTRH didnât reject the proposal, valued at RM99,693,000, and submitted it to Lembaga Perolehan A (Procurement Board A),â he said.
The following timeline was given for the events that followed:
April 4: A letter of intent for the proposal from Tourism Malaysia was issued to the local company, which replied that same day.
Procurement Board A met at 11.45am in a meeting attended by senior officials from the tourism and culture ministry, finance ministry, and Tourism Malaysia. The meeting ended at 1.15pm.
Later that day, Tourism Malaysia issued an internal memo, stating that Procurement Board A had approved the proposal from the local company and that a contract was to be prepared.
That afternoon, a senior ministry official and a Tourism Malaysia official launched a project related to the âSpeedy Gonzalesâ contract. The agreement for the proposal was signed between Tourism Malaysia and the local c ompany.
April 10: A letter of appointment from Tourism Malaysia was issued to the local company.
April 27: Tourism Malaysia issued a certificate of work completion to the local company with a recommended payment of RM11,963,160 for specified works done by the company.
May 6: Tourism Malaysia made payment of RM11,963,160 to the local company.
Wee called on Tourism Malaysia to clarify whether it had the financial capability to enter into the contract on April 4, whether the contract had been budgeted for, and whether it could be cancelled.
âFrom my knowledge and experience in government procurement, this case seems peculiar and perhaps goes against the finance ministryâs procurement regulations
âWhy the rush? Was the contract scrutinised and due diligence carried out? Usually, such contracts take weeks or months to finalise but this was all done in one day. I hope the new government can look into this.âSource: Google News