When we throw dirt, we lose ground

0

RECENTLY, there have been arguments levelled against Pemandu, its subsidiary BFR Institute (BFR-I) and myself by Serdang Member of Parliament Ong Kian Ming. Five critical points were raised.

First, Ong questioned the involvement of Pemandu in public sector consulting, to foreign governments and entities.

Let’s be clear. Pemandu remains committed to deliver on the National Transformation Programme (NTP) from its inception in 2010.

In 2011, I shared our early NTP success and Pemandu’s Big Fast Results (BFR) Methodology at the Langkawi International Dialogue.

Following that, we were engaged in discussions with many interested governments, which led to a joint project with the Tanzanian government in 2013.

From the onset, we drew a distinct line between our services for the government of Malaysia and the work for other organisations and governments. We made sure operations for the latter were funded by the respective governments.

Hence, BFR-I was set-up.

As we progressed, we realised the value in sharing and exchanging key experiences and best practices of transformation with a larger audience.

This leads to my response to Ong’s second query: “Why should the government bear the cost for hosting the Global Transformation Programme in 2015?”

Putting Malaysia on the map is not a linear effort. We saw a need to converge and to bring all our experiences together onto a singular platform.

This was the sole reason why the government of Malaysia, in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) hosted the inaugural GTF last October.

The GTF featured notable speakers including iconic leaders from Malaysia.

It was attended by over 3,000 paid delegates, comprising Heads of States and corporate leaders from over 70 countries.

A delegate, Rachel Leong from Mah Sing Group, was very impressed with the event. She did not think it was government-run, citing that the content was candid with the speakers sharing personal experiences, which the audience could easily connect with. She added that the ambience was cutting edge and fun.

This proves that the government can do things outside the box and is progressive.

In fact, the two-day event received a resounding 92 per cent thumbs up in participant feedback rating.

The success of GTF 2015 has since prompted several governments abroad to express their desire to host it. We believe this was a worthy investment to profile Malaysia, so that we continue to be a viable destination for investments.

Thirdly, on disclosure of annual accounts, Pemandu’s grants and operating expenses.

Since its incorporation on Oct 26, 2009, all monies received as revenue were recorded and all Pemandu annual accounts were submitted to the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM).

Ong is wrong to claim that Pemandu incorrectly recorded zero in the profit and loss for all annual accounts.

Perhaps he was referring to his check with CCM, which does not disclose such figures.

Pemandu, like Penang Institute, of which Ong is general manager, is a Company Limited By Guarantee (CLBG).

It is not compulsory for CLBGs to annually provide an update on revenue and profit and loss figures but we are duty-bound to do so.

My team had done a similar check on Penang Institute with CCM.

Consistent with Ong’s findings on Pemandu, no revenue or profit and loss was disclosed by Penang Institute.

Pemandu receives grants from the federal government to cover its operating costs, as well as specific grants

allocated for ministries to implement NTP-related initiatives.

These are publicly disclosed in our roadmaps and annual reports.

The grants are accounted for in our balance sheet, with utilisation supervised and approved by Pemandu board.

Finally, the ownership of BFR-I.

Due to limitations in Pemandu’s Memorandum & Articles of Association (M&A) as a CLBG, it cannot own more than 49 per cent equity of another company.

When BFR-I was set up on April 30, 2014, Pemandu held 49 per cent equity, with the balance 51 per cent held by me, as Pemandu’s trustee.

Permission was granted by Minister of Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism on July 10, 2015 to amend Pemandu’s M&A, enabling the 51 per cent equity held by the trustee to be transferred to Pemandu.

Since July 20, 2015, Pemandu holds all 100 per cent equity of BFR-I. I would like to assure everyone that this fact will be reflected in the 2016 Annual Return from June 30, 2016 onwards.

Let me summarise the facts in two points.

First, I do not currently own any share of BFR-I either in personal capacity or as a trustee. It is 100 per cent owned by Pemandu.

Secondly, I have never held any share of BFR-I in my personal capacity at any point in time.

Regulatory constraints necessitated me to temporarily hold 51 per cent share as a trustee. This interim decision was approved by the board until Pemandu attained ministerial approval to own 100 per cent equity. This deed has been done.

We issued a press statement to clarify this. Following that, Ong responded, “My statement referring to Dato Sri Idris Jala’s 51 per cent ownership of BFR-I Sdn Bhd was based on a company search I did on the 25th of February,

2016. The transfer of Idris Jala’s 51 per cent stake to Pemandu Corporation was not reflected in the Companies Commission of Malaysia’s accounts as of 25th February. I apologise to Idris Jala, if I have caused anyone to think that Idris Jala benefited financially from his then 51 per cent share of BFR-I, which was held in trust which has now been diluted down to 51 shares as per the latest CCM records.”

It is a fact that I had instructed my lawyer to sue Ong on his allegations.

However, as he has apologised, I decided not to pursue the legal route. I believe that we all have so much to do for our country and we should all focus our energy and effort in doing the work, rather than to throw dirt at one another.