Abdul Rahman Dahlan used a “false analogy” that the Penang government also grants extension for its own contracts, Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said.

Lim accused Rahman, former urban wellbeing, housing and local government minister, of trying to wriggle out of being exposed as the “Minister for Housing Developers”.

“His argument is that if state agency such as the Penang Development Corporation (PDC) can grant extension of time (EOT), why can’t he do the same?” Lim noted in a statement yesterday.

“This is a false analogy. If a brother is bad, it does not mean that the sister or other family member is also bad.”

Lim clarified that PDC granted the EOT because it was within the state agency’s rights to do so as a party to the contract.

He said EOT was granted only after discussions between PDC and the contractor.

“Even the auditor-general has given PDC the green card for approval of the EOT after hearing and accepting PDC’s explanations,” added Lim, who is also PDC chairperson.

Lim was responding to a series of tweets by Rahman last Saturday, where he posted a page from the 2015 Auditor-General’s Report that showed Penang had granted EOT for five different projects.

Rahman did this following police reports, lodged against him by DAP leaders, for granting a 12-month extension to BHL Construction Sdn Bhd for its delay in completing a high-end condominium project in Kuala Lumpur.

Penang Deputy Chief Minister II P Ramasamy and MPs Lim Kit Siang and Tony Pua had questioned Rahman over his alleged “abuse of power” in granting the EOT to the company.

Rahman has denied any abuse of power, saying his actions were within his ministerial powers.

He also said his former ministry is appealing a decision by the High Court in Kuala Lumpur against his move, favouring 104 house buyers affected by the project delay.

'Let house buyers claim compensation'

Lim pointed out that in the EOT case involving Rahman, the minister is not a party to the contract but an “outside third party.”

“Rahman had no relationship with the sale and purchase contract signed between the purchasers and housing developer,” Lim said.

“The minister had chosen to interfere in a private contractual agreement to side the single housing developer against 104 house buyers.

“In his case, the High Court had ruled that Rahman had abused his powers,” he added.

“At the very least, Rahman should have tried to gain the consent from the two parties in the contract, namely the housing developer and the house buyers.”

But instead of doing so, Rahman had chosen to “blindly support” the housing developer and continues to do so, Lim said.

Rahman should have the courage to face 104 house buyers and explain why he is appealing against the KL High Court decision, he added. 

Lim said Rahman should withdraw the appeal and accept the High Court decision with “an open heart.”

“He should allow the house buyers to reclaim their rights and entitlement to full compensation from the housing developer for compensation for late delivery.”