Home > Corruption, Papua New Guinea > Pacific Games Contract Blowout Whiffs of National Provident Fund Fraud

Pacific Games Contract Blowout Whiffs of National Provident Fund Fraud

Pacific Games contractor, China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) has been blacklisted by the World Bank for “fraudulent practices”. They have also been found by the Bangladeshi courts to have acquired contracts through bribery.

So when CHEC was handed a massive roads deal (K318 million) by the NCD, PNGxposed’s eyebrows were raised. So were Governor Parkop’s when he discovered through a viral social media campaign what his auditors had not, and he duly suspended the contract.

Now we learn CHEC has been given the contract to build the 2015 Pacific Games village at the University of PNG. According to the Good Governance Advocacy Forum the project is costed at K190 million, yet CHEC was allegedly awarded an astronomical K263 million, that is a K73 million excess. Other contractors we are told bid around K190 million.

The argument that CHEC are a ‘world class’ outfit worth the extra splurge has been definitely torn apart by the Jamaican Minister for Transport, Works and Housing, who following an audit inquiry, reported that CHEC had, “wanton disregard for conventions and procedures established by the Government of Jamaica for projected implementation, administration and management. These breaches of existing procurement guidelines have drained precious budgetary resources and undermined the very foundation of public institutional integrity”.

So why would the PNG government allegedly pay an extra K73 million to a company blacklisted by the World Bank and slammed for shonky work by the Jamaican government?

The answer may lie in another anti-corruption investigation conducted into the National Provident Fund, by esteemed judge Tos Barnett. Here it was alleged that Peter O’Neill, Jimmy Maladina and Herman Leahy conspired to inflate contract costs, and each took cuts of the excess.

Of course, the Pacific Games is being organised under the watchful eye of Justin Tkatchenko. Should we be worried, surely he would not allow untoward graft to take place? If past anti-corruption inquiries are anything to go by, be worried.

In 1999 a Special Investigation into Fraud, Corruption and Financial Mismanagement at the National Capital District Commission, done by TSK International, found that Justin Tkatchenko as Acting City Administrator fraudulently obtained a total of K12,000 through two cheques in the sums of K4,000 and K8,000.

In 2003 the Parliamentary Accounts Committee was asked by Parliament to conduct an investigation into alleged corruption in the Parliamentary Service. The Committee submitted its report in September 2003 after summonsing witnesses and hearing evidence given on oath.

The PAC investigation found Justin Tkatchenko’s company Kitoro No.33 was awarded a K1.5 million contract to maintain parliamentary gardens, in breach of procurement procedure. The Kitoro tender was received 3 months AFTER the closing date. The tender submitted was only for twelve months but a three year contract was awarded. The original contract amount of K490,000 was K190,000 above the limit imposed by the Public Finance Management Act. The lowest bid for the project tender was just K12,000 per year. Kitoro was awarded contract totalling K837,738 that did not go to public tender.

The PAC recommended the contracts with Kitoro No.33 be terminated immediately and the officers responsible for the tendering, awarding and executing of the contract face ‘appropriate action’.

It seems inflated contracts are something of a tradition among NEC colleagues, if the anti-corruption reporting is anything to go by. Perhaps this could explain why a blacklisted Chinese company was gifted K73 million by the PNG government, a gift its own citizens are much more in need of.

Advertisements
  1. Johnny Mek
    August 21, 2013 at 5:07 pm

    Building their cuts into the contract sum seems to be the order of doing business or modus operandi now in PNG. if its from the top down then its best to open up all the prisons and let everyone out. They are not different from the people stealing from the top. God help PNG. IT ALL STINKS.

  2. August 22, 2013 at 10:20 am

    Please do not blame the ones in prisons as they were driven by sheer desperation and NEED for survival that prompted them into stealing monies for which they are serving time in jails. these idiots that seem to fest from getting CUTS are out of GREED to have more. They are worse off than a simple prisoner.

    I bet some one in PNG should seriously venture into forming an ASSASSIN COMPANY or HITMAN COMPANY and have it successfully registered with IPA.

    He would be an instant BILLIONAIRE within a short span of time.

  3. Jason
    August 22, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    I have a story of which is actually a personal matter that i am trying to get out.. so far the IPA and all other avenues have failed to care. where am i able to contact someone, either the author of this blog, other caring parties or government agencies contacts that are really going to lend a ear and actually push things to happen. Its regarding the theft and fraud activities of a Australian Expat who is working as a director of a Civil Engineering Company and has stolen from shareholders (myself included) who are all born citizens of Papua New Guinea…. if you are able to help please email me via jcherrett@hotmail.com

    Thank you so much! and also i love this blog! i am always here and the Facebook pages and news papers reading about home.

  4. Sinaka
    August 25, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    A bit of correction here guys! The Games Village contract was awarded to China Railway Construction Engineering CRCE and not CHG!! Apart from that everything is factful. The Minister should be shot and the tender reconsidered!!

  5. September 1, 2013 at 11:18 pm

    I’m sick of your malicious attacks against CHEC. I am working in CHEC, and I know the Bangladesh matters and Jamaica matters you mentioned are sorta garbling tricks, so as to make your stands more powerful. Here i leave my email here, in case of anyone wants to get more detailed information: wang_wei@chec.bj.cn

    • PNG Exposed
      September 3, 2013 at 5:54 am

      Wang Wei, we are not familiar with garbling tricks – please explain? There is nothing malicious about this report. The World Bank blacklisted your parent company China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) and all its subsidiaries. Indeed, we have barely tapped the barrel of allegations against CHEC and its parent company. See for example:

      From China to Gozo with baggage

      From Jamaica to Bangladesh, from Guyana to Malaysia, China Communication Construction Company has left a trail of controversy, facing allegations of bribery, collusion and lack of transparency.

      China Communication Construction Company is the Chinese company conducting a €4 million feasibility study on the feasibility of a bridge to Gozo, for free and without expecting anything in return.

      Collusion in the Philippines

      In January 2009, the World Bank announced the debarment of seven firms and one individual for engaging in collusive practices under a major Bank-financed roads project in the Philippines. One of the companies was China Road and Bridge Corporation, the company which later changed its name in to China Communications Construction Company (CCCC).

      The company was debarred from receiving any funding from the World Bank for eight years. The debarment was the result from an in-depth inquiry conducted by the World Bank’s Integrity Vice Presidency (INT). INT is responsible for investigating allegations of fraud and corruption in Bank-financed operations.

      The INT investigation uncovered evidence of a major cartel involving local and international firms bidding on contracts under phase one of the Philippines National Roads Improvement and Management Program, known as NRIMP 1. INT closely analysed the procurement process the firms participated in and conducted numerous interviews before closing the investigations and initiating sanctions proceedings against the entities.

      As a result of swift action when suspicions of collusion in the bidding process were raised by the project team, the World Bank stopped an estimated $33 million from being awarded.

      Leonard McCarthy, World Bank Integrity Vice President, described this case as “one of our most important and far-reaching cases”.

      Based on INT’s investigation of the NRIMP 1 case, the World Bank’s Sanctions Board, made up of senior Bank officials and external legal experts, decided that the entities had participated in a collusive scheme designed to establish bid prices at artificial, non-competitive levels and to deprive the borrower of the benefits of free and open competition. According to the World Bank, this “constitutes fraudulent practices”.

      Three other Chinese companies namely the China State Construction Corporation, China Geo-Engineering Corporation and Dongsung Construction Limited were also debarred.

      The programme involving the debarred companies was designed to assist the Philippines government to upgrade its roads network and was partially financed by a $150 million loan from the World Bank.

      In July 2011 the World Bank announced the debarment of China Communications Construction Company Limited, as the designated successor entity to China Road and Bridge Corporation.

      CCCC had denied the alleged engagement in collusive activities insisting that the World Bank allegation has “no factual or legal merit”. The company is also seeking clarifications from the World Bank to lift the debarment as soon as possible.

      Cheating in Malaysia

      In October 2012, the Kuala Lumpur High Court found three State-owned Chinese companies and their local partner, guilty of conspiring to cheat another Malaysian company.

      The case was reported by The Edge a reputable Malaysian financial and investment weekly.

      The Edge reported the contents of a 55-page judgment by the High Court Judge Justice Rosilah Yop found that DCX Technologies Sdn Bhd was deprived of its rights and its interests in the project after its partner China Roads and Bridges Corporation-the mother company of CCCC, forwarded a copy of a proposal it had prepared with the assistance of DCX Technologies to its sister company China Harbour Engineering Corporation (CHEC) and to the Malaysian HRA Teguh.

      CHEC and CRBC later merged for form CCCC.

      CHEC proceeded to submit this proposal to the Malaysian government as its own and was awarded the contract for the construction of the bridge. In its judgment, the Malaysian high court concluded that the Chinese company CRBC failed to obtain DCX’s written consent to pass a copy of their proposal to CHEC and their Malaysian partner.

      “The defendants had conspired to cheat the plaintiff,” the judge concluded in his sentence.

      The 23.6 kilometer bridge was officially inaugurated in April.

      Bribing death row official in China

      Caijing a reputable independent, Beijing-based magazine reported that the Chairman of the China’s Hebei Port Group, Huang Jianhua had helped China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) to win a bid or the construction project at the Huanghua Port Wharf. In exchange executives at CCCC gave Huang a house worth more than 4 million Yuan.

      Jianhua was sentenced to death for receiving bribes in November 2011. CHEC and CCCC strongly deny any involvement in this case. In a press conference in Guyana, Zhongdong Tang, China Harbour Engineering Company Limited (CHEC)’s Regional Director, claimed, “this matter, which is still in court in China, is not directly related to CHEC. China Harbour is not guilty of any wrongdoing in these matters”.

      Corruption in Bangladesh

      In January 2009, the US Department of Justice alleged that in 2005, China Harbour Engineering, a subsidiary of China Communication Construction, paid bribes totalling US $1.76 million to the Singapore account of Arafat ‘Koko’ Rahman, the youngest son of a former Bangladesh prime minister in connection with the Bangladesh Chittagong Port project.

      In 2010, Koko, was jailed for laundering millions of dollars in bribes taken from CHEC.

      In a widely covered case by the media, Rahman was jailed, in absentia, for six years for laundering money he received as kickbacks from CHEC and the Bangladesh subsidiary of Germany’s industrial giant, Siemens AG.

      In June 2010, Judge Mohammad Mozammel Hossain said in his verdict that Rahman was guilty of smuggling more than 200 million takas to Singapore. The judge fined Rahman 190 million takas (US$1.6M) and asked authorities to get the smuggled money returned.

      Rahman was accused of taking bribes from CHEC and the Bangladesh subsidiary of Germany’s industrial giant Siemens AG for helping them win government contracts during his mother’s 2001-2006 premiership.

      Charging Rahman of money laundering, the Bangladeshi Anti-Corruption Commission case referred to his illegal dealings with CHEC in relation to a contract for constructing New Mooring Container Terminal at Chittagong Port.

      The prosecution claimed that Rahman obtained the money from CHEC in three installments – on 6 May, 31 May, and 1 August, 2005.

      When quizzed about this episode in a press conference in 2012, China Harbour denied involvement arguing that it was a consultant that it hired who was involved in this case.

      Questions raised in Jamaica

      CHEC was also under fire in Jamaica after an independent probe revealed suspicious discrepancies over a US$400 million contract awarded in 2009 without any competition by the government to execute its Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme.

      In July 2011 the Office of the Contractor General (OCG), in a statement to the media, announced it was launching a probe to substantiate a statement by minister of transport and works Mike Henry that “the US$340-million loan being used to fund the project came from the China Ex-Im Bank with a pre-condition for a Chinese firm of their choice to undertake the programme”.

      In 2012, Contractor General Greg Christie raised the issue as to whether the government, in its due diligence exercises – if any in fact took place – had identified CHEC’s debarred status in the World Bank’s blacklist.

      In a congratulatory letter to prime minister Portia Simpson Miller on her swearing in Christie also asked the new People’s National Party administration to declare its hand in negotiations with China Harbour Engineering Company for completion of the US$600-million North-South Link Highway 2000, and for the consequential granting of a 50-year toll concession to that company.

      Chief among the Contractor General’s concerns were “strong objections to the apparent intent of the former government to award, without international competitive tender, a sole-source contract to CHEC to, among other things, complete the construction of the Spanish Town to Ocho Rios North-South Link of Highway 2000 and the Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme (JDIP)”.

      Airport controversy in Guyana

      In June 2012, the Chinese company denied allegations of corruption in relation to the US$150M Cheddi Jagan International Airport in the small Caribbean state of Guyana. The airport project was awarded to China Harbour Engineering Company (which forms part of CCCC) in the absence of a public tender.

      As in Malta, the Chinese company had first approached the Guyana government and than proceeded to conduct a study a feasibility study at it own costs.

      The deal caused controversy in Guyana because it only came to public knowledge on the Chinese company’s website.

      Almost 1,000 persons will have to be relocated along with several farms and businesses.

      In a press conference rebutting corruption allegations, the Chinese company insisted that it is in the business of finding projects to invest in and had approached government in early 2011 to rebuild CJIA.

      Government agreed and after several meetings in Guyana, the final designs were approved and a feasibility study was started. In all, the process took around nine months from start to finish for CHEC to seal the deal.

      • September 4, 2013 at 10:22 am

        I’ll reply you tonight after off-work. Tks for your detail.

      • September 5, 2013 at 1:29 am

        You really presented your capability of collecting information, I think it’s good for you to investigate , rather than to only quote someone else’s words, coz it’s common that people will believe the lies that spread everywhere, or even turn to be a garbled text.

        Wang Wei, we are not familiar with garbling tricks – please explain? There is nothing malicious about this report. The World Bank blacklisted your parent company China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) and all its subsidiaries. Indeed, we have barely tapped the barrel of allegations against CHEC and its parent company. See for example:
        From China to Gozo with baggage
        From Jamaica to Bangladesh, from Guyana to Malaysia, China Communication Construction Company has left a trail of controversy, facing allegations of bribery, collusion and lack of transparency.
        China Communication Construction Company is the Chinese company conducting a €4 million feasibility study on the feasibility of a bridge to Gozo, for free and without expecting anything in return.
        It’s necessary to do a feasibility study for the purpose to promote a project. Considering the free deal with Malta Gov’t, they are still not obliged to award the subsequent project to CCCC. The background is that CHEC had built the breakwater with a length of 930m at Grand Harbour in 1985, we successfully completed it. The Grand Harbour grown up to one of the busiest shipping center in Europe after then. That history is the cooperation base and confidence. Do you believe a democratic gov’t will do the under-table thing with such a small contract value?
        Collusion in the Philippines
        In January 2009, the World Bank announced the debarment of seven firms and one individual for engaging in collusive practices under a major Bank-financed roads project in the Philippines. One of the companies was China Road and Bridge Corporation, the company which later changed its name in to China Communications Construction Company (CCCC).
        The company was debarred from receiving any funding from the World Bank for eight years. The debarment was the result from an in-depth inquiry conducted by the World Bank’s Integrity Vice Presidency (INT). INT is responsible for investigating allegations of fraud and corruption in Bank-financed operations.
        The INT investigation uncovered evidence of a major cartel involving local and international firms bidding on contracts under phase one of the Philippines National Roads Improvement and Management Program, known as NRIMP 1. INT closely analysed the procurement process the firms participated in and conducted numerous interviews before closing the investigations and initiating sanctions proceedings against the entities.
        As a result of swift action when suspicions of collusion in the bidding process were raised by the project team, the World Bank stopped an estimated $33 million from being awarded.
        Leonard McCarthy, World Bank Integrity Vice President, described this case as “one of our most important and far-reaching cases”.
        Based on INT’s investigation of the NRIMP 1 case, the World Bank’s Sanctions Board, made up of senior Bank officials and external legal experts, decided that the entities had participated in a collusive scheme designed to establish bid prices at artificial, non-competitive levels and to deprive the borrower of the benefits of free and open competition. According to the World Bank, this “constitutes fraudulent practices”.
        Three other Chinese companies namely the China State Construction Corporation, China Geo-Engineering Corporation and Dongsung Construction Limited were also debarred.
        The programme involving the debarred companies was designed to assist the Philippines government to upgrade its roads network and was partially financed by a $150 million loan from the World Bank.
        In July 2011 the World Bank announced the debarment of China Communications Construction Company Limited, as the designated successor entity to China Road and Bridge Corporation.
        CCCC had denied the alleged engagement in collusive activities insisting that the World Bank allegation has “no factual or legal merit”. The company is also seeking clarifications from the World Bank to lift the debarment as soon as possible.
        Here some mistakes are found in your expression. CRBC’s matters in Philippine happened in 2003, before the merger with CHEC in 2005 by the political decision from the China Gov’t. Before that merger, CRBC and CHEC were totally independent companies. Both of CRBC and CHEC are state-owned companies, in 2005, China Gov’t decided to recombine national assets and formed a new holding company CCCC, CRBC and CHEC kept operating separately just as before with their own systems and brands . Even as far now, CRBC still undertook lots of project all over the world with their own name instead of CCCC. This case was not like you said that it happened in 2009 and CRBC subsequently changed the name so as to intentionally get rid of the sanction from the World Bank.
        In 2009 the sanction fell to CRBC after 6 years investigation by World Bank. In 2011 CCCC got affected by the sanction. While CHEC didn’t involve in any matter during the whole process, that’s Why CHEC was so strongly argued about debarment effect imposed upon CHEC. CHEC still ran the branch office in Manila and just complete another road project named “Contract Package 5, Cervantes-Mankayan-Abatan, Arterial Road Links Development Project, Phase V, Ilocos Sur & Benguet, Ph-P217” in 2012.
        So please do not mixed up CHEC with CRBC, we are totally two different companies, the sanction upon CRBC is nothing to do with CHEC.
        Cheating in Malaysia
        In October 2012, the Kuala Lumpur High Court found three State-owned Chinese companies and their local partner, guilty of conspiring to cheat another Malaysian company.
        The case was reported by The Edge a reputable Malaysian financial and investment weekly.
        The Edge reported the contents of a 55-page judgment by the High Court Judge Justice Rosilah Yop found that DCX Technologies Sdn Bhd was deprived of its rights and its interests in the project after its partner China Roads and Bridges Corporation-the mother company of CCCC, forwarded a copy of a proposal it had prepared with the assistance of DCX Technologies to its sister company China Harbour Engineering Corporation (CHEC) and to the Malaysian HRA Teguh.
        CHEC and CRBC later merged for form CCCC.
        CHEC proceeded to submit this proposal to the Malaysian government as its own and was awarded the contract for the construction of the bridge. In its judgment, the Malaysian high court concluded that the Chinese company CRBC failed to obtain DCX’s written consent to pass a copy of their proposal to CHEC and their Malaysian partner.
        “The defendants had conspired to cheat the plaintiff,” the judge concluded in his sentence.
        The 23.6 kilometer bridge was officially inaugurated in April.
        What I want to say again is that CHEC and CRBC are two totally different companies. You didn’t mention any judgment upon CHEC from the court, right? The conspiracy with CHEC’s involvement is just in your imagine. You can prove that CHEC got the proposal and wan the contract, and anything else?
        Bribing death row official in China
        Caijing a reputable independent, Beijing-based magazine reported that the Chairman of the China’s Hebei Port Group, Huang Jianhua had helped China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) to win a bid or the construction project at the Huanghua Port Wharf. In exchange executives at CCCC gave Huang a house worth more than 4 million Yuan.
        Jianhua was sentenced to death for receiving bribes in November 2011. CHEC and CCCC strongly deny any involvement in this case. In a press conference in Guyana, Zhongdong Tang, China Harbour Engineering Company Limited (CHEC)’s Regional Director, claimed, “this matter, which is still in court in China, is not directly related to CHEC. China Harbour is not guilty of any wrongdoing in these matters”.
        I’ve never heard CCCC gave that person Jianhua so huge amount of money. I searched information about that case, one of former CHEC’s vice department manager name Ms. Huang Suzhen had good friendship with that officer since 1995. The officer gave 4 milliion Yuan to Suzhen to buy a house for him, not CCCC gave the money to the officer. Ms Huang Suzhen left CHEC for a long time already when the “4 million matters” happened , she was the only person from CHEC in that sensitive case, the court didn’t ever put any sentence on CHEC. I suggest you go to read some raw materials for your reference next time.
        Corruption in Bangladesh
        In January 2009, the US Department of Justice alleged that in 2005, China Harbour Engineering, a subsidiary of China Communication Construction, paid bribes totalling US $1.76 million to the Singapore account of Arafat ‘Koko’ Rahman, the youngest son of a former Bangladesh prime minister in connection with the Bangladesh Chittagong Port project.
        In 2010, Koko, was jailed for laundering millions of dollars in bribes taken from CHEC.
        In a widely covered case by the media, Rahman was jailed, in absentia, for six years for laundering money he received as kickbacks from CHEC and the Bangladesh subsidiary of Germany’s industrial giant, Siemens AG.
        In June 2010, Judge Mohammad Mozammel Hossain said in his verdict that Rahman was guilty of smuggling more than 200 million takas to Singapore. The judge fined Rahman 190 million takas (US$1.6M) and asked authorities to get the smuggled money returned.
        Rahman was accused of taking bribes from CHEC and the Bangladesh subsidiary of Germany’s industrial giant Siemens AG for helping them win government contracts during his mother’s 2001-2006 premiership.
        Charging Rahman of money laundering, the Bangladeshi Anti-Corruption Commission case referred to his illegal dealings with CHEC in relation to a contract for constructing New Mooring Container Terminal at Chittagong Port.
        The prosecution claimed that Rahman obtained the money from CHEC in three installments – on 6 May, 31 May, and 1 August, 2005.
        When quizzed about this episode in a press conference in 2012, China Harbour denied involvement arguing that it was a consultant that it hired who was involved in this case.
        I think the last words ” China Harbour denied involvement arguing that it was a consultant that it hired who was involved in this case” can make sense. You can not use the prosecution’s claim to enforce your stand, anyway, the sentence from the court is more convincing. We still ran our normal business in Bangladesh, that is enough to explain itself. Do you think a foreign company with that kind of illegal problem can keep their stay in Bangladesh again?
        Questions raised in Jamaica
        CHEC was also under fire in Jamaica after an independent probe revealed suspicious discrepancies over a US$400 million contract awarded in 2009 without any competition by the government to execute its Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme.
        In July 2011 the Office of the Contractor General (OCG), in a statement to the media, announced it was launching a probe to substantiate a statement by minister of transport and works Mike Henry that “the US$340-million loan being used to fund the project came from the China Ex-Im Bank with a pre-condition for a Chinese firm of their choice to undertake the programme”.
        In 2012, Contractor General Greg Christie raised the issue as to whether the government, in its due diligence exercises – if any in fact took place – had identified CHEC’s debarred status in the World Bank’s blacklist.
        In a congratulatory letter to prime minister Portia Simpson Miller on her swearing in Christie also asked the new People’s National Party administration to declare its hand in negotiations with China Harbour Engineering Company for completion of the US$600-million North-South Link Highway 2000, and for the consequential granting of a 50-year toll concession to that company.
        Chief among the Contractor General’s concerns were “strong objections to the apparent intent of the former government to award, without international competitive tender, a sole-source contract to CHEC to, among other things, complete the construction of the Spanish Town to Ocho Rios North-South Link of Highway 2000 and the Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme (JDIP)”.
        The Jamaica issue was their own political problem. The former gov’t signed contract with CHEC, and the opposition party just kept thinking if there was any backroom dealing , and wanted to seek any clue to attack against the ruling party. That why the issue upraised. Now the former opposition party came into power and conduct the investigation on the Contract. Honestly speaking, CHEC is glad to cooperate with the investigation, coz there nothing illegal thing found, that is the best way to eliminate all the gossips. For your information, any project funded by China Ex-im Bank shall bring Chinese contractors, do you know why? CHEC brought the money (concessional loan with low interest) from China Ex-im Bank to fund the project, if Jamaica Gov’t don’t like CHEC, they are free to get the other approach to fund by themselves.
        Airport controversy in Guyana
        In June 2012, the Chinese company denied allegations of corruption in relation to the US$150M Cheddi Jagan International Airport in the small Caribbean state of Guyana. The airport project was awarded to China Harbour Engineering Company (which forms part of CCCC) in the absence of a public tender.
        As in Malta, the Chinese company had first approached the Guyana government and than proceeded to conduct a study a feasibility study at it own costs.
        The deal caused controversy in Guyana because it only came to public knowledge on the Chinese company’s website.
        Almost 1,000 persons will have to be relocated along with several farms and businesses.
        In a press conference rebutting corruption allegations, the Chinese company insisted that it is in the business of finding projects to invest in and had approached government in early 2011 to rebuild CJIA.
        Government agreed and after several meetings in Guyana, the final designs were approved and a feasibility study was started. In all, the process took around nine months from start to finish for CHEC to seal the deal.
        The issue is similar with the Jamaica issue, Guyana need the concessional loan from China Ex-im Bank. The conclusion still the same, the investigation finally find nothing illegal. If the Guyana Gov’t get the concessional loan from JICA, the contractor might be a Japanese one, if from World Bank or ADB, the contractor might be anyone with the compliance of the WB/ADB rules. Every financial institutes have the rights to set up their own rules when their money fund projects. WB debarred CRBC to anticipate in Road & Bridge Project, similarly, China Ex-im Bank has the rights to require the anticipant of Chinese Contractors.
        Some extra information for your reference:
        1) CHEC ran business in over 50 countries, even though there were gossip against CHEC, we keep the international rules as the highest criteria. We received praises from lots of country gov’t, much more than the gossips. You can go to find if there any official sentence upon CHEC from any court, then let me admit your rightness.
        2)CHEC newly entered into Timor-Leste market in April, 2013 , and anticipated in some tenders this year. The evaluation system here was created by Charles & Kendall Partnership, an int’l consultant company hired by Timoris Gov’t. Any bid shall be evaluated by them independently firstly in two steps, first step is technical bid evaluation without any disclosure of price information, second step is to invite the companies with top 3 scores in technical evaluation process to open the price bid. This two steps are to avoid backdoor dealings and to select the real strong companies with good technical capability, based on that , the only one company with the best price will be awarded to execute the tender. In Suai Airport project (an international tender), CHEC ranked no.1 with 2440 points (full scores 2500 points ) in technical scores, much more than the No.2 with 2240 points. After being invited to open the price bid, CHEC was found to have the best price. I think this kind of bid evaluation system can demonstrate something that CHEC have the enough capability to win a project without any backdoor dealing.
        3) CHEC share long friendship with China Ex-im Bank and China Development Bank, they are the only two policy banks in China. Both of them can provide the concession fund with a 1.5%-4% yearly rate, World Bank is normally with 4%-7% yearly rate. That makes CHEC have more priority to take part in some G2G projects, such like in Malaysia, Jamaica, Guyana.
        4) CHEC had undertook lots of project founded by World Bank/ADB, in Sri Lanka and other countries. Even in PNG, the Lae Port Project funded by ADB, is under construction right now. Do not say that CHEC still have the so-called fraulent practice in that project. Anyway, we expect the investigation with K318 contract of road upgrading can be done soon and return CHEC a fair conclusion.

  6. Frank Akuani
    September 2, 2013 at 8:28 am

    And you know what Wang ole boy we’re sick and tired of you and your rascist people, cheap goods, bullshit business practices and general attitude that you’re all so damn superior. Oh and when it comes to “garbling tricks” – well you would know wouldn’t you!

    • September 2, 2013 at 10:02 am

      despite of emotional expression, you spoke nothing valuable words, man. with regards to the matter of China, The person show arrogant atitude is you. keep your words and open your eyes, you’ll find more trues.

  7. Frank Akuani
    September 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm

    Good Chienglish Wang.

    • September 2, 2013 at 8:14 pm

      hope your better English can help you to better understanding of the reality. you just enjoyed the attacks against CHEC, while it’s funny that you simply mind just follow the masses without your own judge.

  8. September 5, 2013 at 1:34 am

    sorry to put my reply into ur original text. maybe a little bit difficult for reading.

  9. Bonip Panuta
    September 5, 2013 at 1:35 pm

    I believe that the focus here should not be CHEC. They are here to make money, by whatever means. We should instead scrutinise the actions of our leaders involved in the awarding of the contract, beginning of course with Prime Minister Peter O’Neill and Sports Minister Justin Tchenko. Given the bad or negative profiles of these Chinese companies how on earth did we give out such contracts. If there were any tender procedural issues or bending or breaking of our Public Finance Management Act then these two leaders are to be among those people we need to question.

    What’s in it for them? K73 million?

    Rumours are being circulated almost on a daily basis but no-one has come out to disprove or confirm them. To me it stinks when our leaders have been brought into question by their actions – whether genuine or not, the perception remains in our mind that something or someone stinks somewhere.

    Whilst Prime Minister Peter O’Neill’s anti-corruption pet the Task Force Sweep Team have been making a lot of noise – there has been over 60 arrests – but no conviction as yet. It leads me to draw the conclusion, whether true or not, that the team is basically a smoke screen for Prime Minister Peter O’Neill. There are numerous stories about the company that our Prime Minister keeps and the multi-million kina deals PNG has entered into.

    Here are a few examples:
    1. LNA Constructions was given a K24 million contract to tile the National Parliament without going through tender processes. The Principals of the company, Nii and Luciano Cragnolini as very close friends of the PM. Rumour has it that this money came from K54 million which the PM parked in the National Parliament Imprest Account during the political impasse. Part of the money was paid out to lawyers who defended O’Neill during the impasse. The Speaker of the National Parliament actually instituted an investigation into how the funds were spent but was threatened and abandoned the investigation.
    2. LNA was awared a multi-million contract to rebuild the Pineapple building. Again, this is a company whose owners are very close friends of the PM; Was it tendered? If so can the details be made public for the people to see if the process was fair.
    3. Curtain Brothers was awarded a K60-plus million contract to build a ring road around Paga Hill when the company which owns the land offered to do it for three times less. Rumours have it that the PM actually flew to Australia to give the cheque to the owner Mick Curtain. Don’t know what relationship the PM has with the Curtains but it makes no sense why build something for K60-plus million when you can do it for K20 million. Where is the additional K40 million going to?

    Rumours has it that PM O’Neill has amassed a huge personal fortune in the short time in office. Some say he is now worth between K300-K500 million. Rumour has it that he was bought out Carson Pratt/Southwest Air in Mendi for a substantial amount of money. Can this be confirmed? This we understand was in preparation to tap into the spin-offs from the K6 billion Chinese loan for the HIghlands Rehabilitation Program. Again, all rumours but if true, then this is something every thinking and concerned Papua New Guinean should be aware of. Do we need a Prime Minister who has personal business interests as well? Can he serve two masters?

    And lastly, it pains me to lean also that the Prime Minister and former Mendi Open MP Michael Nali own a pokies/club in Port Moresby. He says he is against gambling but does not hesitate to have them in his establishment.

    Again, these are all rumours but would appreciate if someone can confirm or deny them.

    Bonip

  10. September 6, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    The Truth about Corruption in Papua New Guinea

    PNG is rich in natural resources and has enjoyed continued economic growth for well over a decade at the back of high commodity prices for its mineral resources and other natural resources such as timber and fishery. Yet the country still remains a poor third world country but why?

    Read the full article and soon you will know why and the truth about corruption in Papua New Guinea.

    Soon after Papua New Guinea gained independence from Australia in 16th September, 1975, the leadership which, the new country was handed over to have never developed a nationalized long-term development plan, where the country’s wealth would be fairly and equally distribute to develop all people and all parts of the country.

    For instance, they never had a long-term development plan supported with strategies to build satellite townships in all districts in every province including plans to have three quarters of the population as working-class population or plans to establish rural housing schemes to replace bush buses with permanent houses and so on.

    In the absence of such long-term development plans, all subsequent governments has resorted to temporarily or short-term measures, usually on an ad hock or reactive basis. Development funds were then just thrown away for leaders to use and spend on anything as they wish.

    Politicians realized then that they can have easy access to huge public funds at their disposal, something neither they nor their ancestors used to before. They also realized that they can buy anything in the world with money; a life they never thought would possible, let alone their parents.

    In a country where everyone else were illiterate and poor around that time, the leaders soon become the gods and celebrity figures in their families, clans and tribes. Everyone started looking upon them and worship them. It was the start of the emergence of PNG’s “money big man culture” – big man with money takes everything and is above the laws of this land. The leaders slowly transit into the world of the Colonial Masters – Western Civilization, ahead of their fellow Papua New Guineans.

    They started developing an appetite for misusing, abusing, and stealing public funds to buy the kind of life that commands great respect from the poor ordinary Papua New Guineans. The appetite they developed is now responsible for swallowing billions of development funds every year.

    Since then the misconception of politics as a means of wealth creation emerged and it has now grown into a cultural norm.

    Politicians or PNG’s big men begin their political careers as ordinary persons, or civil servants, and graduate as business entrepreneurs after their discontinuation from office. The emergence of politicians-turned-businessmen or vice versa after 1975, and the difficulties in separating business from politics, had sent out false signals to aspirants to political office. Contesting elections today has become a god sent opportunity to wealth accumulation.

    This quite clearly explains why ordinary persons, civil servants, priests and pastors when voted into parliament disappear and reappear as business entrepreneurs. This also explains why elections in PNG these days are increasingly becoming marred with violence, bribery and cheating. Leaders are not contesting the elections to serve the people and the country but to serve their greed for money and personal wealth creation.

    As a result, a culture of greed and corruption developed, where anyone as long as they have connections to the political masters could easily establish schemes, which could then be used to divert and siphon public funds away from the people and development. Slowly, a network of cronies and their masters developed. Cronies mostly come from the bureaucratic mechanism and some relatives and business associates of leaders. Bribery, wantok system and nepotism then become the norm. Currently, the network is multiplying every year and with every new government.

    To contain and feed their greed, political leaders have been always looking for easy ways to bring in big money into the national coffers so that more money can be floating around in the system for them to steal and feed their huge appetite and greed for money.

    Sadly, our natural resources have been the constant subject of their quest for easy money, in the disguise of growing and sustaining the economy. They have been giving tax breaks to multi corporations in the disguise of attracting foreign investment while neglecting other sectors of the economy such as Agriculture. Perhaps this explains why we are still poor despite our riches in natural resources, foreign aids and loans.

    Over the years we have been asking why our politicians are not serious about stopping corruption in the country. Well, the answer is obvious now. Neither they can punish themselves for stealing nor can they stop themselves from stealing public funds. They love money and all that money can buy and earn for them. They have been addicted to greed and money from the start. There is no quick and easy way out for the country as long as they maintain control over the national coffers.

    Sadly, while they have been enjoying a life their ancestors never had enjoyed before with money, they have been leaving behind the rest of the people of Papua New Guinea poor and beggars in their own rich country.

    As a result, every place that has been once a village still remains village. Even villages that host multibillion dollar projects still remain a village. A typical example is the people of Kutubu in the newly created Hela province. They still live in shacks built from sago leaves without electricity and water supply despite oil has been taken out of their land for more than twenty years – generating billions of Kina in revenue for the State.

    Despite the grim scenario, every subsequent government has over the years spent billions and billions of kina for development. These monies never get to the people as they still remain as villagers in villages. Before there were few bush houses in villages. Now that number has tripled twice with increasing population growth. Obviously a backward development trend as our leaders has lost the plot from the beginning to fairly and equally distribute the country’s enormous wealth.

    If we continue down this path, this country would probably remain the same or worse as we are witnessing violent crimes which, we have never witnessed before.

    Our forefathers were not beggars but we are beggars now. We would have survived better on our land of untold wealth and beauty without Western Civilization like our forefathers. Civilization has brought us nothing good but greed for only a few to exploit our natural resources and wealth for their own selfish gain.

    The dilemma facing this generation is, whether to join the past generation of leaders to continue follow the footsteps of our so called founding fathers of this nation and remain beggars in our own natural resource rich country. Or challenge the leadership that has run the country down and liberate the country so that the country’s wealth can be equally and fairly distribute to all people. The people of this nation deserve to have equal opportunity to a better life if they choose to work hard.

  1. January 22, 2015 at 12:09 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: