Open Letter By Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng To Consumers Association of Penang(CAP) and other aligned organizations who oppose the Penang traffic decongestion projects of 3 highways and one under sea-bed tunnel.

Open Letter By Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng To Consumers Association of Penang(CAP) and other aligned organizations who oppose the Penang traffic decongestion projects of 3 highways and one under sea-bed tunnel.

21 March 2013.

Encik S.M. Mohamad Idris,

Chairman Of CAP.

Dear Sir,

We refer to your recent statement opposing the Penang state government’s traffic decongestion projects of 3 highways and one under sea-bed tunnel comprising a 7 km undersea tunnel from Gurney Drive to Bagan Ajam in Butterworth, a 4.2km Pesiaran Gurney-Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu Expressway bypass, a 4.6km Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu Expressway-Bandar Baru Air Itam bypass, and a four-lane 12km road linking Tanjung Bungah with Teluk Bahang.

The state government has openly engaged with both the public and civil society since these projects were first mooted in 2011 and throughout the period of open competitive tender process until it was awarded this year. Whilst we welcome public views, such inputs and even criticisms from our detractors must always be based on objective analysis and facts, not subjective outbursts and sentiments. As the old adage goes, opinion is free but facts are sacred.

The Penang state government has taken the unprecedented move of consulting with the various NGOs and the public through dialogues and even holding town hall meetings in the full glare of the mass media. The process itself is historic for it has never been done in Malaysia.

Unfortunately you have never attended a single one of such dialogues or meetings. For this reason, we fail to see how you can oppose these proposed projects objectively and factually without the benefit of hearing our side. We would therefore like to take this opportunity to once again extend a personal invitation to you to a meeting where we can address the concerns you have expressed. Our doors are always open to you.

However should you refuse to accept our invitation, let us state why your criticisms of these proposed traffic decongestion projects were made subjectively out of mere sentiments.

One, we agree that public transport is the most effective mechanism to realize the objective of moving people and not moving vehicles. But why has CAP failed to acknowledge the strenuous efforts made by the Penang state government to make public transport the mode of choice for 1.6 million Penangites?

Whilst the state government would prefer to revive our tram system compatible with George Town status as a UNESCO World Heritage city, we had decided to go along with the Federal government’s promise for a monorail made in 2007. Regrettably, the Federal government has decided to play partisan politics at the expense of the public by stubbornly refusing to fulfil their promise of a monorail.

We then decided to think outside the box by offering free bus rides in the heritage enclave of George Town followed by a Park & Ride system to and fro from Seberang Jaya to Bayan Lepas and Balik Pulau at a cost of nearly RM3 million yearly. When this was well-received by the public we wanted to extend free bus services during peak hours throughout the state by paying Rapid Penang RM10 million yearly.

This RM10 million offer was rejected by the Federal government without any reason given. Similarly our proposal for Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang or MPPP to set up our own bus companies to provide public transport was rejected by the Federal government. At no point did CAP support the state government’s efforts nor questioned the Federal government for not accepting the money payment made by the state government to provide free bus services.

Clearly, the Federal government intends to choke Penang to death with traffic congestion. Due to Penang’s success as the most liveable city in Malaysia, the number of tourists pouring to Penang has surged dramatically. The usage at the Penang Bridge is on average nearly 80,000 vehicles daily, which can increase to 108,000 vehicles daily during public festivities.

As a responsible people-centric government, we refuse to do nothing, play the blame on the Federal government and wait to be choked to death by traffic congestion. We are left with no choice but to build highways to alleviate the traffic congestion at the most critical areas such as Paya Terubong, Tanjung Bungah and the inner George Town city area. To disperse traffic and avoid creating bottlenecks brought about by cars seeking to enter or leave Penang at the 2 bridges, there is a need for a third link across Seberang Perai Utara(SPU).

The state government can not build a bridge across the mainland because Federal government approval is required. However, no such approval is necessary for an under sea bed tunnel.

Further there is a question of equity as it is only fair that the residents of SPU are not denied a third link, when residents in Seberang Perai Tengah and Seberang Perai Selatan were given the 2 bridges. Having a third link would also ensure balanced development for SPU to ensure that they are not left out of economic growth.

The state government is equally concerned about the impact both on the environment and the livelihood of fishermen as we are committed to making Penang a green state. Such concerns have been fully addressed by requiring that a full Detailed Environment Impact Assessment(DEIA) be complied with. Should the necessary sanction not be obtained from such a DEIA report, then the projects will simply not proceed. Unlike other Federal government projects, the consultant preparing the DEIA will be appointed by the state government and not the contractor.

The operations of Penang Port will also not be affected as the tunnel will be built safely below the sea-bed. Many experts have opined that in terms of environmental impact, a under sea-bed tunnel has less adverse impact than a bridge.

CAP must bear in mind that the tender was awarded by an open competitive process that commenced in 2011. From an estimated cost of RM8 billion the magic of open competitive tender reduced it to RM6.3 billion. Contrary to wild allegations by BN, the paid up capital of the four companies that won the tender as a consortium and will be signing on individually with the state government is RM4.5 billion and not RM2.

For CAP to claim that we should not engage in the land swap of 110 acres of reclaimed land in Tanjung Pinang to finance this RM6.3 billion project raises serious questions why CAP did not sternly criticize BN for selling the reclaimed land at give-away rates of RM1 per square foot in 1999? Let us restate again that the evaluation and recommendation of the winning tender bid was made by two committees headed by the Penang State Secretary Dato Farizan bin Darus and the Penang State Finanical Officer Dato Haji Mokhtar bin Mohd Jait without any involvement of the Chief Minister. The entire tender exercise was a transparent and accountable process.

The 30 year toll concession period was given only for the tunnel and not for the other 3 highway projects which will be toll free. This toll concession for the tunnel is unique and the first in Malaysia in that there is no traffic volume guarantee given to the companies.

The state government agreed to a toll for only 30 years as we did not want to go to a state of war with the Federal government by not charging toll, as then the Federal government will have legal grounds to stop the tunnel project by claiming that we are deliberately sabotaging the toll collection for the 2nd Bridge. That is the reason why the state government has fixed the toll rate for the tunnel at the same rate as the 2nd Bridge.

Again if CAP is opposed to the 30 year concession by the Penang state government, why then did CAP not voice any objections when the toll concession for the 2nd Bridge is for an even longer period at 45 years?

For CAP to question the expertise and the technical ability of the companies concerned is again a subjective expression of mere sentiment as it blithely ignores the fact that Beijing Urban Construction Group and China Railway Construction Corporation Ltd (CRCC) are major construction companies that built the Beijing Olympic Stadium Bird Nest and most of China’s railroads, including the highest railroad to Tibet. Whilst no one guarantees that there will be no accidents, if that is the yardstick, are we going to stop building roads or aeroplanes just because there are accidents?

Even the Public Transport Masterplan(PTM) advocated the building of the under sea-bed tunnel with the proposed completion of the tunnel by 2025-2030 whereas the state government hopes to bring it forward by 2023-25. The 10-12 years period required to build the tunnel 3rd link is to satisfy all the feasibility and safety requirements including environmental protection.

Due to the length of the project’s completion of 10-12 years, planning and work has to start now. It is misleading for some parties to give the impression that work will start immediately and the tunnel will be completed in a few years time. Just as the 2nd Penang Bridge should have been built 10 years ago due to increased traffic usage, we must plan ahead not for ourselves but for our future generation.

We must not turn the next generation into a traffic jam generation to suffer what we have suffered due to lack of foresight and long-term planning. We may not benefit from these projects but our children and grandchildren will. That is our responsibility – to prepare the future for our young.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

LIM GUAN ENG

CHIEF MINISTER

You can read the Bahasa Malaysia and Mandarin version HERE.

Transparency International Josie M. Fernandez on Corruption in Sarawak Video

Transparency International Josie M. Fernandez on Corruption in Sarawak

Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Najib Razak: Launch Royal Commission of Inquiry into corruption in Sarawak

This petition calls on Prime Minister Najib Razak (Twitter: @NajibRazak) to act immediately to initiate a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into corruption in Sarawak and to publicly provide the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) with an unambiguous public mandate to investigate corrupt acts linked to the family of Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud.

Please read the petition in full at www.change.org/sarawak and sign the petition.

GE13 – Make the right choice

By Kee Thuan Chye | FMT

Voters, you have to decide soon. The 13th general election has to be held at the latest within two months of April 28, when the current government’s term expires. It may even be called next month if Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has the gumption for it.

Meanwhile, if you haven’t decided yet which coalition – Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat – should win federal power for the next five years, consider this.

After 55 years of ruling this country, where has BN got us?

The country is more divided than ever. We have been polarised on racial and religious lines for decades, but now we are divided by political leanings as well.

What about our economic progress?

According to International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates, Malaysia’s GDP per capita based on the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) methodology amounted in 1980 to US$2,331. South Korea’s was lower at US$2,302, and Taiwan’s was slightly higher at US$3,571.

But in 2011, South Korea’s figure rose to US$31,220 (an increase of 1,255%), Taiwan’s to US$37,716 (up 956%), while Malaysia’s stood at US$16,240 (up 596%).

What happened? How did South Korea overtake us and in 2011 record a figure that is double that of ours?

Some people say the GDP (PPP) per capita is not so comprehensive, so let’s look at per capita income instead.

In 2011, South Korea’s per capita income was US$22,424 and Taiwan’s was US$20,083. How much was Malaysia’s? US$9,656. Again, half that of South Korea’s, and also Taiwan’s.

Najib pledges to make us a high-income nation with a per capita income of US$15,000 in 2020. By that time, what do you think the per capita incomes of South Korea and Taiwan would be? Furthermore, would US$15,000 still qualify as high income then?

By the way, our neighbour, Singapore, that used to be part of Malaysia, has a per capita income of US$46,241, which is almost five times ours. And they don’t have natural resources like we do.

In the last few years, the government has hardly been talking of making Malaysia an advanced nation, which is the goal of Vision 2020, tabled in 1991. It has been more than 20 years since, enough time to consolidate efforts to attain the goal, but we are apparently not near it. The talk these days is only about becoming a high-income nation instead. That’s not the same as becoming an advanced nation.

Corrupt practices and economic leakages

Clearly, wastage, leakages, imprudent government spending and, above all, corruption have retarded our growth. And the problem is compounded by the ruling party itself being mired in corruption.

Is BN therefore likely to address this issue in a serious and concerted manner? Has it been doing so, apart from hauling in a few culprits from time to time?

Shouldn’t we bring in a new government that is not so entrenched in this system of corrupt practices and economic leakages?

If we should, the 13th general election may be the only time to do it. Because if BN wins again, it is likely to gerrymander the electoral boundaries afterwards to its advantage and make it even harder for the opposition to win future general elections. In which case BN will be ruling Malaysia for many more years to come.

Would it then be likely to bring reform? Or would it rather continue to maintain the status quo to ensure it holds on to power and reap the rewards of being in government?

However, if the opposition coalition, Pakatan, were to win, what would be the biggest benefit to Malaysians? I think it would be the concretisation of the reality that a two-coalition system can work and is here to stay.

And isn’t this what we need? If not for the March 8, 2008, electoral result, would we be feeling as important as we do today as the people who decide who should govern us? Would we be feeling that our votes do count? Would the government be listening to us as much?

A two-coalition system provides for a stronger opposition, and this is always good for applying pressure on the ruling party to do what is right and what is of benefit to the rakyat. When BN had its two-thirds majority, it enjoyed a monopoly. It could push anybody aside and any laws through Parliament. It could be arrogant. Even now, it still is but less so.

Do you think that if BN were not voted out come GE13 so that it would experience what it’s like to be in the opposition, it would be able to reform itself in order to serve the people better rather than its own interests?

Look at Umno, the biggest party in the BN coalition. It is dominated by warlords – big ones and small ones. To them, losing their fiefdom is losing almost everything.

Holding office, even a relatively small one, opens the door to potential riches for the office holder and his supporters. The bigger the office, of course the greater the wealth. He will therefore not want to give it up.

That is why Umno’s leaders are going around appealing to the party’s members not to sabotage candidates selected to stand at GE13; the leaders know that those who are deprived of the opportunity will be envious of those who supplanted them, and they will be motivated to seek revenge against the latter.

This may be cutting off their noses to spite their faces because the act of sabotage can result in a defeat for the Umno candidate and therefore the party, but they don’t care.

The point is, they lost their chance to stand – and with it their passport to wealth, like the extra percentage they load onto the costs of public projects to line their own pockets with or the kickbacks they get for giving approvals.

Their supporters, who will also lose out in terms of influence, business opportunities, etc, will go along with their act of sabotage. Why else is our prime minister merely half-hearted in weeding out corruption? Because it’s too deeply rooted within his own party.

So how can we continue to give our votes to such a party or its coalition partners, like the MCA, the MIC, Gerakan, PBB, PBS, etc?

Bribing the rakyat

Besides, Umno leaders and their supporters have lately been trying to threaten Malaysians into voting for BN or face the possibility of another May 13. This, they know, works on the simple-minded ones and on non-Malays who fear unnecessary trouble and would have no qualms giving in regardless of their true sentiments.

Should we not put a stop to such irresponsible and unscrupulous measures to frighten the masses? More important, should we not stop once and for all the exploitation of racial sentiments that BN has been indulging in for the past decades?

The choice at GE13, to me, is clear. A new government will assuredly give us reform – if only to win our approval and continued support. A two-coalition system coming to reality will make politics more competitive and beneficial to the rakyat.

We may expect the media to be liberated; our institutions to be reformed; local council elections to be reinstated; academic freedom in universities to be encouraged; the repeal of the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA); the return of open tenders for public projects; lower car prices.

Meanwhile, the current government is merely offering the carrot of cash handouts in the form of BR1M, which it says it will give more of if it wins GE13. Bribing the rakyat seems to be what it’s more capable of doing than formulating reform. Nonetheless, this strategy might well work, especially on those who need the cash.

But even so, we need to weigh that cash bribe against the larger benefit that a change of government could bring. Which would you cherish more? Which might bring better value in the longer run?

Besides, Pakatan also has a plan, inscribed in its manifesto Buku Jingga (Orange Book), that pledges to address the needs of household incomes below RM1,500. This could be a more sustainable approach to combating poverty than periodic cash handouts.

Let us recall then the words of Peter Mandelson, one of the architects of the New Labour Party in Britain: “Elections come and go, and governments come and go. And that’s what democracy is all about.”

When we go to vote, let’s keep that in mind. It’s not a big deal to let a government go and bring in a new one. If the new one doesn’t do its job, we can let it go at the next general election. That’s our democratic right, so let’s exercise it.

Let’s just be sure that come GE13, we make the right choice.

Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling book No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians, and the latest volume, Ask for No Bullshit, Get Some More! This article first appeared in the March issue of Penang Monthly.

Global Witness shocking revelation on Sarawak alledged land graft - Video

WHAT IS THIS FILM ABOUT?

This investigation provides undercover footage of the corruption and illegality at the heart of governance in Sarawak, Malaysia’s largest state, on the island of Borneo. Read full story at Global Witness