In a statement today, the company said the reports (by news portals) had given the impression that HCSB had deliberately misled the government to make double claims on the same project.
It urged PAC to rectify the confusion that has arisen and clear its name.
It hoped an immediate decision on this would be taken to avoid wastage and to ensure the success of this project which had great potential.
Narrating events, HCSB said it was approached by the Fisheries Department to participate in the National Key Economic Area (NKEA) scheme after it had already signed an agreement with the Northern Corridor Implementation Agency (NCIA) in January 2011.
It said HCSB sent copies of its agreement with NCIA to the department for examination by the legal adviser of the department and the agriculture and agro-based industry ministry.
After the examination, an offer letter to HCSB was issued through NKEA and the agreement signed in October 2011, said the statement.
“HCSB has performed construction work with trustworthiness and in compliance with tight conditions outlined by NKEA.”
The company also stressed that the project components for the two allocations under NCIA and NKEA were different, and hence the costs were different.
It stressed that the unit rate issued by the Public Works Department (JKR) was referred to for the project cost.
“Although the NCIA allocation was originally understood to be a loan and NKEA allocation a government grant, the agreements signed clearly said that the allocations were for different components,” the company said.
There was only one component which was found in early 2016 to have been paid by both agencies (NCIA and NKEA), it added.
After being informed on this matter, HCSB wrote to the Fisheries Department for it to delete this portion under NKEA, amounting to RM541,695, the company said, adding that there was no response from the department to this letter.
The company also pointed out that the agreement signed with NCIA required HCSB to pay back the allocation from NCIA in the form of levy on sales revenue and through corporate social responsibility projects.
On PAC’s assertion that HCSB had no experience before starting the project, the company said its director had undertaken a course organised by a company named Blue Archipelago.
It also had a joint venture and training with another company called Indokom in Lampung, Indonesia, with the help of specialist workers, who were assigned to develop exclusive “standard operating procedures” for HCSB.
Joint ventures were also undertaken with Institut Teknologi Bandung, Institut Pertanian Bogor and Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, it added.
“HCSB succeeded in producing as much as 10 tonnes per hectare, and exported the processed shrimp product to Japan with high standards.”
It stressed that HCSB had also succeeded in producing a modern pond system prototype that was able to reduce disease risk and help the company compete.
“This success was acknowledged in writing by aquaculture experts,” the company said.
On March 21, PAC chief Hasan Arifin announced that the committee had tabled a report on the company’s allocations in the Dewan Rakyat.
He said HCSB was found to have billed for its two farms – the Selinsing Aquaculture Complex and Pulau Gula Aquaculture Complex – to NCIA and NKER.
He also said that the company was found to have made claims for several of the same components from both NCIA and NKEA. He also alleged that HCSB lacked experience and expertise in the aquaculture industry