KUALA LUMPUR: Following are excerpts of an interview by selective media with Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan, the current Petronas chairman and former Chief Secretary to the Government who was chairman of the Special Task Force (STF) that investigated foreign exchange losses by Bank Negara Malaysia, and which has recommended setting up a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI).
Question: Tan Sri, just to get the ball rolling, could you tell us how you felt when you got the call to head the Special Task Force (STF)?
Sidek: It was a challenging task. It was something that, at that time, I was not familiar with but it was a responsibility as a former official. It was a responsibility that was given to me and I wanted to discharge that to the best of my ability, working in concert with the other members and the secretariat.
To come up with the truth with integrity so that nobody can question the process of the findings. For me, that is very important as a retired senior civil servant, and throughout my career, I have always tried to discharge my duty with integrity, and that is very important.
Question: Tan Sri, can you explain the challenges in conducting the investigation, in terms of obtaining evidence, because it is something that happened 23 years ago.
Sidek: The challenges were huge and heavy. Firstly, it happened a long time ago, in the 1990s and late 1980s. Perhaps, many involved in the case are no more. Also, how were we to source the information, especially with the limitations of the STF. We were established on an administrative basis and not under any legislation. As such, the STF had no powers to coerce anyone to come forward for any discussion or to give any information. Those were the limitations.
Question: Tan Sri, why now, why the need for an investigation on something that took place some 23 years ago?
Sidek: It happened a long time ago, but it had been revealed and it had been stated that the losses were huge. I feel the people need an explanation on the matter, and the government had decided to conduct an investigation. The government appointed me and I have tried to discharge my responsibility with sincerity and to the best of my ability.
Question: The statement that the Prime Minister’s Office released on June 21 says the findings revealed that there were indications that facts were withheld with the intention to mislead the Cabinet and Parliament. Could you explain this in detail?
Sidek: The terms of reference given to the STF had three points. I, as a former civil servant, and my colleagues in the STF tried to discharge our duties in accordance with the terms.
First: Make a preliminary examination of the total loss. Second: Determine whether there were any attempts to conceal the actual figures. Third: Based on the preliminary investigation, what subsequent action can be recommended, including the need for setting up an RCI.
So, on the first point of total loss. The STF interviewed several people and scrutinised public documents, including BNM annual reports as well as consultations between BNM and IMF and several other documents that could be legally obtained. Based on the scrutiny of these documents, interviews with the relevant people, STF found the figures to be different and much bigger than what was tabled in Parliament.
Question: Was the figure US$10 billion or bigger?
Sidek: Many documents could not be found or obtained because the STF was not empowered by any legislation to coerce anyone. As for the losses, we do not know the exact amount, but it is much bigger than what was disclosed.
Question: Will the RCI have access to the documents that STF did not have?
Sidek: We don’t have any authority to call or compel anyone while the RCI has the authority to do it. For instance, they can ask the MOF or BNM for documents which we were not privy to except those that were available to the public.
Question: How was the questioning process done?
Sidek: This is the constraint, the peculiarity of the STF. Being an administrative body, we did not have any legal authority. We cannot compel anyone to come; even if you ask them to come and they don’t want to come, there is no issue about it. And even if they came and we questioned them, if they refused to answer (we cannot do anything about it). When we question, I always tell them, this is voluntary, and you can choose to answer or not to answer.
And it is not under oath. Even if they answer, we don’t know if that is the truth. So, that is why the RCI is better, although it is safe to say that the STF has reason to believe that the actual loss is different from the figures given earlier and much more than the figures given earlier.
Question: Did Bank Negara Malaysia make up for the losses?
Sidek: They were settled in the subsequent 10 years. Since 1994. It’s in their annual reports. This is based on what was reflected in their annual reports.
Question: Will the members of the STF be a part of the RCI as well?
Sidek: That is for the government to decide. Our duty is to submit the report, which has been accepted by the government.
Question: Tan Sri, can we know how many recommendations the STF made?
Sidek: Only one, that is the RCI. Many endorsements but only one recommendation. Due to the limitations of the STF in determining what happened and other issues, it is best to establish an RCI for a complete understanding and to have closure. If this is not done now, the matter will prolong. In the future, five or 10 years from now, it will crop up again. With a full investigation, there could be closure to this.
Question: Tan Sri, as for this investigation, are you bound by the OSA and till when?
Sidek: Yes. I think forever. You are not supposed to disclose things that you are not supposed to disclose. – Bernama