Treat RM220m international maritime trade issue with same urgency as political cases, maritime expert tells MACC

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 2 — Maritime industry expert Datuk Seri R. Jeyenderan today questioned why an international maritime trade issue involving petroleum cargo worth more than RM220 million had yet to receive a clear answer from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), when the commission had moved swiftly on cases involving politicians.

Jeyenderan, who is chief executive officer of Maritime Network Sdn Bhd, directed his questions at the MACC chief commissioner over a report he lodged on June 5. It concerns alleged discrepancies between the bill of lading and the physical movement of petroleum cargo at Tanjung Langsat, Johor.

“Why is the MACC continuing to remain silent on this issue? Why does it appear that cases involving politicians are being given special attention, while an issue involving international maritime trade has yet to receive a clear answer?” he said in a statement today.

He said that despite several visits to the MACC office and submitting various documents to the authorities, he had yet to receive a final written explanation on the status of the report or any decision made on it.

“I received four emails beginning in June and an SMS in September stating that the case was under ‘MACC Action’, but it has now been four months and there is still no final decision on the report,” he said.

“I have seen several politicians and corporate figures charged in court since May, including former ministers, former senior government officials and company executives, while my report has yet to receive a clear written decision.

“Just tell us whether the case is NFA (No Further Action) or still under investigation. If it is still being investigated, tell us. If it is NFA, tell us. Do not continue to remain silent. We only want to know the status of the report,” he said.

Jeyenderan said he had provided the documents and information requested by the authorities and was not seeking special treatment, only confirmation of whether the matter was still under investigation or had been concluded.

He said the matter should not be viewed as merely a local commercial issue, as it involved international petroleum cargo, trade documentation, Customs procedures, cargo traceability and government revenue.

Jeyenderan also claimed that the Royal Malaysian Customs Department had yet to provide a final written position on the Customs treatment of the cargo, despite repeated requests and discussions with the relevant authorities.

“The MACC is silent and Customs is also silent. We are talking about an international petroleum trade issue involving cargo worth more than RM220 million, yet there is still no proper written explanation on the regulatory position concerning the matter,” said Jeyenderan who has three decades of experience in the industry. 

He claimed the absence of a written position had left industry players uncertain on several matters, including the handling of petroleum cargo declared under the K8 procedure, its discharge and storage in shore tanks, and whether mixing or blending it with existing stock was permitted and subject to specific approvals or documentation.

“How can businesses, traders and international players have confidence in the system if the authorities do not provide a clear position on the applicable procedures and requirements?

“We had a meeting with the Ministry of Finance last week. They concluded that no duty was imposed on the cargo as presented. But to date, no authority has provided any explanation in writing,” he said.

Jeyenderan alleged that the prolonged uncertainty could affect not only the parties directly involved but also Malaysia’s reputation as a trade and maritime hub.

He said he respected the investigative and regulatory powers of the MACC and the Customs Department, and understood that certain information might not be disclosed while an investigation was ongoing, but stressed that a clear written position should be provided when legally permissible.

He added that he would continue seeking clarification through the appropriate channels, saying his aim was to obtain certainty on the applicable procedures and documentation requirements, not to secure any particular decision in favour of his company.