Retired servicemen’s group demands probe over LTAT role in AES

Justin Ong
Patriot said both MACC and the police’s Commercial Crime Investigation Department were obliged to investigate the matter, even if no report is lodged. — Bernama pic

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 19 — Authorities must investigate how the Armed Forces Fund Board (LTAT) came to invest in the Automatic Enforcement System (AES), said the National Patriots Group.

The group of retired security personnel said members of the armed forces, both in service and retired, had no idea until Transport Minister Anthony Loke revealed this when absolving past summonses issued under the computerised traffic law monitoring system.

Patriot said both the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the police’s Commercial Crime Investigation Department (CCID) were obliged to investigate the matter, even if no report is lodged.

“Patriot also demands to know the corporate owners of the two AES concessionaires, which are ATES and Bina Tegap.

“Why did LTAT’s managing director and board approve for RM555 million to be taken from the fund?” Patriot president Brig Gen (Rtd) Datuk Mohd Arshad Raji said in a statement.

He pointed out that LTAT was incorporated to safeguard the welfare and manage the retirement benefits of military personnel, and alleged that the investment constituted a breach of trust.

Loke announced on Friday that the government was wiping off 3.1 million summonses issued under the privatised system, with a combined value of RM435 million in potential fines pardoned.

He also disclosed that the Road Transport Department (RTD) will take over the AES network currently operated by the two firms that partake in the share of revenue derived from the fines.

The introduction of the AES had been fraught with controversy over the questionable legality of private firms essentially performing the role of a law-enforcement apparatus.

Related Articles Be fair and refund paid AES summons, Ka Siong tells Putrajaya Putrajaya cancels all AES summons before Sept 1 Letter to CIA not serious enough to warrant arrest? Security vets ask cops