LETTER | DAP Women's hollow defence of Yeoh

LETTER | DAP Women chief Teo Nie Ching seems to have risen to the occasion to defend her comrade, Youth and Sports Minister Hannah Yeoh, against my call for her or her husband Ramachandran Muniandy of Asia Mobility Technologies Sdn Bhd (Asia Mobiliti) to resign.

My concern was about the involvement of Yeoh’s husband Ramachandran as the CEO of Asia Mobiliti in obtaining the award on a transport-related project in Selangor based on direct negotiations.

Both the Selangor government and the related federal agency under the Transport Ministry approved the project for Asia Mobiliti and another company called Badan CoachBas.

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, but there was a family link between Yeoh’s husband that aggravated the situation.

The involvement of Ramachandran in the company raised questions about whether there were elements of nepotism, cronyism and favouritism.

Even if Yeoh had no role in influencing the decision in favour of Asia Mobiliti, speculations and doubts about the fairness of the decision are bound to rise.

This is why I felt that either Yeoh or her husband needed to resign for the sake of transparency and good governance.

Teo pointed out that I did not raise questions or ask the former Penang chief minister and DAP chairperson Lim Guan Eng to resign when he was charged with corruption.

It was not because I was in the DAP or the deputy chief minister and didn’t want to offend Lim. Such a comment on the part of Teo reveals her immaturity and irresponsibility as the DAP Women chief and deputy minister in the Madani government.

Lim was charged in the court of law and the trial is ongoing at the moment. It was best the matter was left to the court to decide whether Lim was 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 was 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 it 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 government.

I am also not questioning the capability of the individuals in Asia 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 about why the open tender system was not used in the first place.

Teo should not forget the open tender system was the mantra of the DAP. Unless of course, she thinks that direct negotiations are a 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 the DAP leaders are in no position to point out the double and triple standards of others including Teo.

The party’s hypocrisy and double standards are too well known to be amplified any further.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.