anilnetto.com

Today, I just want to thank God for confounding the proponents of the mega transport projects in Penang and delaying them (just like he confounded those pushing for the PGCC project). The bridge partners are now arguing about cost apportioning and design costs - and the project hasn’t even started! Porr, on the other hand, has not even got off the ground after years of inaction while the monorail salesmen are busy trying to convince the Penang government that the overhead train is the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel.

All these multibillion projects may not be in the best interest of the state and of ordinary Penangites. Think about this:

Fact No. 1 - The oil price today is US$116 per barrel (for dated Brent Spot) - and we can expect the upward trend to continue. Can you imagine how much the petrol will cost just to go up and down the bridge in say 10 years? And let’s not even talk about the toll.

Fact No. 2 - World oil production is close to a peak and it is increasingly more difficult and more expensive to find new oil reserves. Production will not be able to keep pace with demand.

Fact No. 3 - Malaysia will become a net importer of oil within a few years and our oil reserves may not last more than a generation.

Fact No. 4 - The roads of Penang are already congested. In fact, Penang Island already has a higher traffic density than Singapore even though Singapore has about 5-6 times the population of Penang Island. How much more traffic can it absorb before it becomes a living hell?

Fact No. 5 - The ferry service today is operating at half the capacity compared to the late 1970s. The old ferry terminal on the mainland which collapsed was never rebuilt. No wonder the ferry service does not have the economies of scale that it once did. No wonder there is so much congestion on the bridge.

Fact No. 6 - Climate change and global warming are here to stay.

Fact No. 7 - More cost effective alternatives have not been considered.

With this in mind, it is amazing that our “planners” want to take us down the (tolled!) path of unsustainable transport infrastructure projects that promote private vehicle ownership and more fossil fuel consumption and which will lead to congestion, pollution and global warming.

Let’s tot up the bill for going down this unsustainable path:

Second Penang Bridge - RM4.3 billion (UEM is said to have come up with a figure of RM4.8 billion!)*
Penang Outer Ring Road - RM1.1 billion
Monorail - RM3.5 billion

Total cost: RM8.9 billion

Allowing for further cost escalations, say a total of RM10 billion at least.

* This cost is probably inflated, as one expert told me that material costs for the second bridge should not exceed a billion ringgit - RM2 billion at most. Even The Edge business weekly in its cover story this week suspects that the RM4.3 billion figure could be inflated.

With a fraction of that RM10 billion total bill, we could do wonders for public transport - and other social spending - in Penang.

What could we do with say RM3-4 billion?

• Expand the ferry service and build more ferry terminals at different locations
• Introduce trams
• Build a cross-channel rail link perhaps alongside the Penang Bridge

The Penang state government’s new high-powered team for the second bridge should shift its focus to public transport for the whole state.

It is incredible that we can even think of mega transport projects when we haven’t even come up with a transport masterplan for the state that would promote public transport. We haven’t even considered the implications for traffic and the environment in the state.

Why the hurry to spend billions before thoroughly studying the situation and looking at feasibility studies? In the first place, why even borrow US$800 million from China to finance the second bridge? And where are the EIA reports?

We still have time to do some proper planning before throwing away billions - which ordinary Penangites will have to bear for years.

In the meantime, expand the ferry service. That should immediately reduce congestion on the bridge.

And then let’s consider ALL the alternatives which would include an improved bus service, trams, ferries and a cross-channel rail link. Come up with an integrated masterplan and don’t work on a piece-meal, ad hoc basis.

Penangites cannot make an informed choice if we have not considered all the various options thoroughly and listened to the views of the best public transport experts from around the world (ie those who do not have any vested interests in infrastructure projects). Why not invite public transport experts from cities with excellent public transport to tell us how they reduced their traffic nightmares at a fraction of the cost?

The good thing about promoting public transport is that it will create more long-term local jobs. Think of the construction of new ferries and ferry terminals, assembling of buses, laying of rail tracks for trams, more ferry pilots, ferry crew, tram drivers, bus drivers, admin staff, maintenance personnel…

It will lead to less stress and congestion on the roads as pedestrians and cyclists reclaim the streets. It will also be a lot more sustainable and spark more economic activity in the town centres as the experience of other cities with excellent public transport amply demonstrates.

Wouldn’t you want to live in a charming heritage city where you could walk past old shophouses along the tree-lined streets in town, use efficient public transport that won’t cost an arm and a leg, sip a drink at a road-side cafe and watch the world go by without choking from the fumes of passing vehicles? I know I would.

Do you really think those boys in Putrajaya share this vision of Penang? Do you think they care about the environmental consequences?

In a sense, we are at a crossroads. Penang is in a unique position to do something different - something sustainable, environmentally friendly and people and pedestrian friendly - which could be the talking point of the region. If we go down the wrong road, I don’t even want to think of the consequences. It will be the end of Penang as we know it.

Anyone up for a ‘Bloggers for Trams’ in Penang campaign?

I spent a couple of years in Trengganu when I was a kid. I have fond memories of a tranquil and rustic state, wonderful childhood neighbours - whom I have recently been reacquainted with after all these years - and family picnics at Pantai Chendering.

So the high stakes battle in Trengganu over the choice of Mentri Besar is of special interest to me.

While much has been said about the constitutional position, there is more to it than just the letter and spirit of the law.

There is more to it than that - and it is essential that we consider this dimension in any discussion of the political situation in Trengganu.

Follow the money trail.

One of the key issues, I believe, is how the Petronas oil royalties due to the state amounting to some RM1 billion annually should be spent - for the benefit of the people or for vested interests. Despite its oil wealth, Trengganu is one of the poorest states in the federation.

The royalty payments are no small change. In the past, the money was paid directly to the state government and dispensed under its supervision.

But when Trengganu fell to opposition hands (Pas) in 1999, then prime minister Mahathir changed the rules. He couldn’t bear to see all that money going to an opposition-controlled state government.

Instead of the Petronas royalties (amounting to 5 per cent of oil extraction and sales) going directly to the Trengganu state government, they were now channelled to a federally administered Special Fund Financing Programme (the Fund), which was established in December 2000. The money in this new Fund was euphemistically renamed “goodwill money” (wang ihsan) and it was supposed to directly finance development programmes for the people of Terengganu, largely bypassing the state government.

Since then, there has been little accountability over how this money has been spent and whether the projects really benefit the ordinary people.

The missing Accounts Committee

Basically, the Treasury is supposed to make allocations out of the Fund to various ministries (and via these ministries to federal agencies), financial institutions, and federal and state-level offices.

According to the Auditor General’s Report 2005, in line with a directive, the Treasury was supposed to create an Accounts Committee, chaired by the Treasury’s Chief Secretary, to administer the Fund. The Committee was supposed to comprise representatives from the Prime Minister’s Department (including the Economic Planning Unit), the Treasury, and the Finance Ministry.

But the Auditor General (AG) said then that such a Committee had not been set up – surely this must be of serious concern.

Instead, a “Central-level Committee”, which appears less high-powered, was formed. This Committee, which includes representatives from ministries and implementation agencies, meets twice a year to discuss and approve allocations. It is not clear who exactly is in this Committee. PM Abdullah must reveal the composition of this committee.

This Central-level Committee is supposed to evaluate projects and recommend to the Cabinet financial allocations for the various states. But the AG said he found that allocations for the various states were not decided during the Committee’s meetings. Instead, the “allocations were based on the approval of the Finance Minister and they were forwarded straight to the relevant state Menteris Besar”. The Finance Minister is of course the Prime Minister.

Would that explain why Abdullah Badawi is so keen on retaining Idris as MB?

In an article for Aliran Monthly, ‘Buying goodwill - RM4 billion worth of it’, I wrote back then that although the AG had said that the people had benefited from the Fund, his finding was not backed up by empirical evidence. He conceded that, at the state level, “expenditure that should not have been financed from the Special Fund allocation had occurred and this had more or less jeopardised the objective of the programme”.

He also found that not all ministries, departments and agencies had submitted their quarterly expenditure statements as required (though he said their monitoring work was adequate). This meant the Treasury’s records related to the Fund were incomplete. More seriously, there was no evidence to show that the Treasury had taken follow-up action. He also stressed that all allocations should be approved by the Central-level Committee.

Reading between the lines, it seemed to me, that there was a lot of arbitrary discretion being exercised as to how the fund was being administered – most likely to serve the interests of the ruling party while benefiting certain vested interests.

The best solution is to return the royalties to the state governments. High-powered independent audit committees with opposition representation, reporting to the respective state assemblies, should be set up to ensure that such funds are used on projects that really empower the rural poor. This will dispel the perception that this ‘goodwill money’ is being used as a patronage tool to boost political ‘goodwill’ for the Barisan Nasional while also benefiting vested interests.

I would hazard a guess that the Agong, who is the Sultan of Trengganu, knows what is going on and is deeply concerned.

Here’s one intriguing question: If a new MB who is not the PM’s choice is sworn in, would the files of yet another state government disappear?

Right now, it’s a battle of wills.

Even though Abdullah’s choice of MB (supposedly) has the backing of all the BN assembly members, would the weakened PM ram him through and risk having to face another state election in Trengganu? This time, Pas and PKR, fresh from their successes on the west coast, could well pose a stronger challenge.

Well, well, well, what do we have here?

Pas is fielding a non-Muslim Indian Malaysian woman as a candidate for the Tiram state seat in Johor: 29-year-old law graduate Kumutha Rahman.

Okay, it might be a gimmick to attract non-Muslim votes. After all, even Hishamuddin “the keris man” Hussein has agreed to re-open the original Damansara Chinese school in Petaling Jaya, which was closed in 2001. Amazing what elections can do!

It remains to be seen if this Pas move is just tokenism or the start of a journey to reach out to “The Other”.

But all said and done, it is a breakthrough. This is exactly the sort of “out-of-the-box” thinking that we need to shape a new political landscape in our land, breaking down ethnic, religious and mental barriers.

Check out this NST report:

ELECTION 2008: Pas breaks own taboo to field first non-Muslim candidate
By : Syed Umar Ariff

JOHOR BARU, Thurs:

Kumutha Rahman looked nervous as pressmen, armed with notebooks and recorders, jostled through the crowd for an interview with her. The 29-year-old law graduate, who had just been named as the first non-Muslim candidate to be fielded by Pas, listened attentively to the questions hurled at her when Johor Pas announced their candidates at their headquarters in Batu Pahat.

KUMUTHA Rahman looked nervous as pressmen, armed with notebooks and recorders, jostled through the crowd for an interview with her.
The 29-year-old law graduate, who had just been named as the first non-Muslim candidate to be fielded by Pas, listened attentively to the questions hurled at her when Johor Pas announced their candidates at their headquarters in Batu Pahat.
She is contesting the Tiram state seat. But knowing the realities perhaps, Pas is fielding her under the Parti Keadilan Rakyat symbol based on the electoral pact the two parties have entered into.

Still, is she in for a culture shock? Will she be able to speak the language of Pas where Arabic phrases and Quranic verses matter most? Will she have to physically cover herself more than ever?

“I know I won’t feel alienated because I believe voters nowadays are open-minded,” she said. “I also know that Muslims and non-Muslims will be able to accept me.”
A member of the one-month old Unity Bureau under the Johor non-Muslim Pas Supporters Club, Kumutha may be oblivious to the fact that she had broken the conservative Islamic party’s 61-year-old tradition of only fielding Muslims as candidates.

“I joined the club because I see that Pas is not bent on racialism. To me all races be they Malays, Chinese or Indians are all the same.”

Making the announcement was Johor Pas commissioner Datuk Mahfodz Mohamed, returning to contest for the Bukit Serampang state seat, said the move signified Pas’ tolerance towards other races.

The move to field a non-Muslim candidate comes hot on the heels of another shock announcement reported in the AP agency yesterday but hardly given a mention anywhere else in the local press: the party has dropped from its electoral platform its pledge to create an Islamic state. Instead, its slogan will be “a nation of care and opportunity”.

“We offer equal justice to all, justice in economy opportunities and freedom of religion,” Abdul Hadi said. “We promise a government that is trustworthy, just and clean which will be able to give the people a better life.”

Can’t argue with that!

What is even more interesting to me is that Pas has borrowed a key idea from civil society groups. The party has unveiled a plan to use the country’s oil profits to pay for health care and retain oil subsidies.

Now, the health care financing bit comes straight out of the Coalition Against Health Care Privatisation’s People’s Proposal - and it is certainly do-able, instead of wasting our oil profits on mega projects that do not benefit the ordinary people. Think of how much our general hospitals could be improved if we used our oil profits to benefit the people. Why, our general hospitals could be on par with - or even better than - any private hospital in the land! At present, the government is spending only 2 per cent of GDP on public health care when it should be spending 5 per cent or more.

It’s about time political parties took this proposal seriously. Like you, I know of too many people who have suffered tremendously because of long waiting lists and a critical shortage of specialists and doctors in our general hospitals.

This is what the Coalition had proposed two years ago (bear in mind that Petronas’ profit is now two or three times higher than what it was in 2004):

“National Health Fund

We therefore propose a new funding formula to safeguard the health of all Malaysians. It could be called the National Health Fund, but it should not be financed from the pockets of individual Malaysians. There are plenty of viable and present alternatives. They include: