Minister of Transport either misled or lied to Parliament about AirAsia’s debts!
Soalan Nombor 43: PR-1212-L13830
Tuan Wee Choo Keong [ Wangsa Maju ] minta MENTERI PENGANGKUTAN menyatakan di bawah undang-undang apakah MAB dan MAS dibenarkan oleh Kementerian untuk memberikan kemudahan kredit melebihi RM110 juta dan RM85 juta kepada AirAsia, sebuah syarikat swasta dan apakah langkah-langkah yang telah diambil oleh MAB dan MAS untuk mendapatkan semula hutang-hutang tersebut daripada AirAsia.
Jawapan:
Tuan Yang Di-Pertua
Pemberian kredit oleh Malaysia Airports Holding (MAHB) kepada AirAsia adalah tertakluk kepada polisi kredit syarikat yang diluluskan oleh Lembaga Pengarahnya. Berdasarkan polisi kredit syarikat, tiada had ditetapkan untuk sebarang kemudahan kredit yang diberikan kepada syarikat-syarikat penerbangan. Walau bagaimanapun, AirAsia diberi tempoh kredit selama 30 hari dan caj faedah dikenakan ke atas pembayaran lewat sebanyak 1% sebulan.
Bagi Syarikat Penerbangan Malaysia (MAS) pula, kemudahan kredit yang diberikan kepada AirAsia adalah bagi tujuan perkhidmatan udara luar bandar (Rural Air Services – RAS) untuk memastikan pelaksanaan RAS berjalan lancer. Kredit yang diberi oleh MAS adalah dari segi “maintenance” pesawat FAX.
Bagi mendapatkan semula hutang-hutang tersebut daripada AirAsia, MAS dan MAHB sedangan mengadakan perbincangan dengan AirAsia dan Kementerian Kewangan.
Note:
The Minister of Transport (MOT) was deliberately not answering the second part of the question i.e. what actions have been taken or to be taken by MAHB and MAS to recover the said debts of RM110 million and RM85 million from AirAsia. The MOT’s reply that “… MAS dan MAHB sedangan mengadakan perbincangan dengan AirAsia dan Kementerian Kewangan” was most ridiculous and an insult to the intelligence of the Malaysian public.
AirAsia is a private company listed in the Bursa Saham KL. Why was the Minister of Finance involved with debts owed by AirAsia, a private company, since year 2002? Why was there no negotiation before the last Parliamentary sitting in May 2008 or before I questioned about these debts, which have been owed since 2002!. The MOT’s reply seems to suggest that the Minister of Finance has an interest in AirAsia. If this is so, then the Minister of Finance should announce his interests.
Further, AirAsia had been quoted in the press to have said that it only owed MAHB the sum of about RM60 million and not as announced by MOT. Under the circumstances, MOT must have lied in Parliament when he told Parliament that AirAsia owed MAHB about RM110 million. The MOT must be censured for telling a white lie in Parliament or misleading Parliament.
In any event, AirAsia should pay up the sum of RM60 million first before going through with the so-called “negotiations” with the Minister of Finance.
This matter will be pursued to the fullest in parliament because the MOT must not lie or mislead Parliament in the way the MOT did.
