Employees' Provident Fund deputy chief executive officer Rusma Ibrahim's comment, that the decision to proceed with the purchase of Malakoff's bonds was the investment panel's call, was a very irresponsible statement to make.

If the matter involves the public interest, the EPF cannot simply cover up the issue just like that. More than 85 percent of the general public had already expressed their non-confidence in EPF management. And they are not questioning the prerogative of the board to make decisions, they are questioning the investment board itself!

The issue arose when there are conflicts of interests of the major decision-makers on the EPF Investment Board; deputy chief executive officer for investment Dr Roslan Ghaffar who addressed the issue is also personally involved.

Stating that EPF chairperson Abdul Halim Ali abstained from voting on the subscription of Malakoff's Intisna bond does not make it less questionable, since it involves his accountability to the 10.4 million EPF members. How can the EPF number one abstain from the decision-making process of one of the biggest investment undertaking in its history? Where were you Abdul Halim? You can not serve 'two masters' at the same time!

EPF should also not mislead the public on the cost of the power plant that the Intisna bond is expected to raise based on the Malaysian standard. Malaysian power plant cost is considered one of the highest in the world due to intransparent practices in contract award procedures.

Why is it that the EPF has never questioned the fact that Malakoff did not award the contract to build through the international open tender? The project was directly awarded to Zelan Holdings Sdn Bhd. Why has the EPF not requested Malakoff follow the open tender practices of the World Bank or Asian Development Bank?

China's Yang Zhou power plant project which was funded by the World Bank (Project ID POO3641, World Bank main loan credit No 37180) with a 1,200 megawatt capacity (2 x 600 megawatt generating units) only costs US$350 million (RM1.33 billion). If this was to be converted to the Malakoff plant's 2,200 megawatt capacity, that price should then be US$642 million (RM2.4 billion). Instead, the Tanjung Bin power plant is reported to cost RM6.95 billion. Furthermore, this project sits on 160 hectares of land and involving about 3,000 family resettlements.

EPF's acceptance of Rangkai Positif Sdn Bhd as the maintenance and operation contractor is definitely highly irregular. The company has only RM2 paid up capital, besides have no experience in managing power plants. How can the EPF investment board be so blind on the matter?

The EPF board also blindly accept the Rating Agency Malaysia's assigned rating of Malakoff as AA3. There is a lack of prudence for not seeking alternative opinions from other rating agencies - such as internationally renowned Standard and Poors or Moody - before making decision to purchase.

The EPF Board can claim that this is their prerogative power, but the 10.4 million EPF members also have the prerogative right to seek an explanation, especially when the EPF have yet to explain the RM15 billion paper loss issue and the mismanagement of Malaysian Building Society Berhad.

Kubang Kerian member of parliament Husam Musa, as a representative of Malaysian citizens, also has a constitutional prerogative to seek explanation from the EPF board, since previous questions raised by the Malaysian Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Teaching Professionals with regards to EPF mismanagement received no public reply.