Lim said PDC was a party to the contracts, one of which was for a drainage project in Batu Kawan, which had been given a 544-day extenion, but he argued the state agency had the right to make the decision.
“The extension of time (EOT) was granted only after discussions between PDC and the contractor,” he said in a statement today.
He said the Auditor-General had given PDC approval after hearing and accepting its explanations for all the project extensions given, which ranged from 293 days to 544 days.
Lim, who is PDC chairman, was responding to Umno’s Abdul Rahman Dahlan who in a series of postings on Twitter yesterday, uploaded a screen grab of a page from the 2015 Auditor-General’s Report that showed Penang gave EOT for five different infrastructure projects.
Rahman, who is a minister in the prime minister’s department, said the Penang government could have gotten compensation from the contractors and used it for other projects to benefit the public.
Rahman had made the assertion following criticisms by DAP leaders that he, in his previous portfolio as urban wellbeing, housing and local government minister had granted a 12-month extension for a high-end condominium project in Kuala Lumpur.
Deputy Chief Minister II P Ramasamy and Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua alleged that Rahman had abused his powers in the matter.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled against the ministry’s move on Feb 27. Rahman, who held the portfolio from 2013 to 2016, has since said his former ministry will be filing an appeal.
He said the granting of an EOT is well within the minister’s powers and that such extensions were given only after stringent checks and if a developer faces delays due to circumstances beyond its control.
‘Minister for Housing Developers’
Lim today described Rahman’s attempt to highlight the case in Penang after being criticised for his ministerial move as a “false analogy”.
“Abdul Rahman tried to wriggle out of being exposed as ‘Minister for Housing Developers’ by equating his abuse of power (as ruled by the KL High Court) with the Penang Development Corporation (a state agency), granting extension of time to contractors,” he said.
He said by giving the extension, Rahman had chosen to interfere in a private contractual agreement, that is the Sale and Purchase Agreement between the developer and 104 housebuyers, and subsequently had acted in favour of the developer.
“In the housing sale and purchase agreement, the minister is not a party to the contract but an outside third party, who had no relationship with the sale and purchase agreement signed between the purchasers and housing developer,” Lim said.
“Did Abdul Rahman consult with the 104 housing purchasers before ‘robbing’ them of their rights and entitlement to compensation with the stroke of a pen?”
He said Rahman should have at the least tried to gain consent from the two parties – the developer and the buyers – in the contract.
Rahman should also have the courage to face the buyers and explain why an appeal is now being made by the ministry concerned against the High Court decision, he added.
“Should he dare not do so or fail to convince the housebuyers why he is right, then he should ask the ministry to withdraw the appeal and accept the KL High Court decision with an open heart to allow the housebuyers to reclaim their rights and entitlement to full compensation from the housing developer for compensation for late delivery.”
Poser over ministerial power to grant extension to developer