Landing a "big fish" in court may not mean anything unless there is real progress in solving the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) debacle, says the DAP's Ronnie Liu.

The Pandamaran state assemblyperson commended the move to charge former Transport Minister Dr Ling Liong Sik for cheating the government, though it had been a long time coming.

He lamented that neither the police nor the-then Anti-Corruption Agency (now known as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) paid any attention to the three police reports he filed between 2004 and 2007 on alleged hanky-panky in the PKFZ.

"It (charging Ling) is good. It is a small step for the federal government, police, MACC and the A-G (attorney-general) to take action against big fish," he said at a press conference at the state secretariat in Shah Alam today.

NONE However, Liu ( left ), who was the first person to expose the controversial project in late 2004, said Ling's court case must yield results if there is to be any hope for accountability.

"We are not sure of the consequences (of Ling's trial), because there have been many bad experiences with big fish. Many are eventually let off because of insufficient evidence.

"We hope this is not another case where the prosecution declares that it does not have enough evidence."

Accused of misleading the cabinet

Ling was yesterday charged in the Sessions Court in Putrajaya for allegedly misleading the cabinet between Sept 25 and Nov 6, 2002, into agreeing to purchase 999.5 acres of land on Pulau Indah for a project, now known as PKFZ, at a price of RM25psf on a deferred payment basis for a 15-year period, at a 7.5 percent interest rate.

The cumulative interest paid would total RM720 million at the end of the repayment period.

NONE Ling ( right ) was also offered an alternative charge, under Section 417 of the Penal Code, for the same offence.

Liu, who is also a Selangor state executive councillor, said he has "some confidence" in the courts, but stressed that he, along with many others, should be called as witnesses so that the prosecution could gather as much evidence as possible.

He said the charge against Ling was a vindication of the three police reports he had filed on the PKFZ issue between 2004 and 2007, adding that he has more evidence to back his claims.

He declined to elaborate on the evidence he would present to the court if called to testify in Ling's trial.

"If the police and the court call me (as a witness), then they will know what evidence (I have)," he said.

DAP's Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng noted that it was only right for the prosecution to call Liu to testify as Ling's case was based on police investigations and not related to the probe by the Public Accounts Committee.

"In a police case, any charge would have a complainant and the complainant should be summoned to court to testify," Lim said.