Avoiding conflict of interest: Consulting firm ‘should have no interest in project implementation’


The World Bank has specific guidelines to highlight conflict of interest situations especially in procurement.

This one from the bank’s Procurement Guidelines should be of interest to us:

1.7 A firm shall be considered to have a conflict of interest in a procurement process if:

(a) such firm is providing goods, works, or non-consulting services
resulting from or directly related to consulting services for the preparation or implementation of a project
that it provided or were provided by any affiliate
that directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with that firm.

Therefore, applying this guideline in the case of SRS Consortium, the project delivery partner that has come up with a 20-volume transport proposal for Penang (which has deviated substantially from the Penang transport masterplan designed by Halcrow) – my interpretation is, any member of SRS Consortium (or any of its affiliates) should not bid for any work package under the SRS proposal; otherwise a conflict of interest arises.

So Gamuda (which has a 60 per cent interest in SRS) should not bid to build the LRT or the Pan Island Link; neither should the two Penang-based property development companies (20 per cent interest each) bid for any of the components in the SRS proposal, including the sale of reclaimed land. To do so would be to create a conflict of interest which the guideline seeks to prevent.

They cannot say that if nobody else submits a bid, they should be allowed to bid. That defeats the whole purpose of this guideline – which is to prevent a consultant from coming up with a proposal that it would have an interest or undue advantage in.

READ MORE:  BCF transport framework made public; SRS' RM40bn proposal still under wraps

There should be no exceptions to this procurement guideline, if the state is serious about accountability and transparency.

I believe my interpretation is shared by Gamuda founder Koon Yew Yin. Speaking about the World Bank-funded Muda irrigation scheme in the 1960s, he said:

The government engaged a reputable engineering consulting firm which has had experience with similar projects to put up a proposal and to open the project bidding to all contractors to tender. The most important thing to note is that the consulting company responsible for the tender process should be independent and should have no interest whatsoever in the project implementation…

In this case, SRS Consortium has no experience with trams and bus rapid transit, which is in the Halcrow transport blueprint that the state government adopted.

Koon added:

Never invite contractors to submit project proposals for any mega project because each contractor will submit his own planning and design which will be impossible for the tender board to evaluate. You cannot compare the cost of an apple with the cost of an orange, a banana or a pineapple.

A contractor should not be permitted to take on the role of the engineering consultant responsible for design as well as that of the role of a construction contractor responsible for the project implementation as the two roles are of conflicting interest. If the company is permitted to do so, it will lead to public perception of abuse and corruption….

Take for example the recent news report that the construction giant Gamuda Bhd is the favourite to land the job as the project development partner (PDP) to oversee the implementation of key components of the integrated transportation plan on the island of Penang.

READ MORE:  Tanjung Bungah landslide: Penang commission of inquiry must have broad scope

Firstly, it is clear that Gamuda and all the other companies reported to be in the running for the massive multi-billion dollar project do not have any experience to be in the position of the overall design consultant.

They are not (even) engineering consultants. They are construction contractors. Gamuda might have constructed the tunnel in Kuala Lumpur but they did not design it.

Secondly, CIMB Research has found it “pleasantly surprising” that the Penang state government opted for the Project Development Partner (PDP) structure similar to that of the Klang Valley MRT which has been heavily criticised for cronyism and abuse. From the rakyat’s experience, what is “pleasantly surprising” to contractors will definitely be unpleasant and disastrous for the public.

The consulting company responsible for the tender process should be independent and should have no interest whatsoever in the project implementation…

The other area of conflict of interest relates to the 6 per cent project delivery partner fee. This is what Tony Pua said in 2012 about the PDP fee structure in relation to the KL MRT:

Given that the PDP is being paid on a percentage of contract cost and has to bear any cost-overrun beyond the 15% “allowed contingency”, the PDP which has to help the govt evaluate the various tender proposals will be incentivised to pick the bids with higher prices than the lower ones.

The simple reason is that the higher priced ones will translate into a higher fee for the PDP given the fixed 6% structure.

In the case of the Penang transport masterplan, the cost has ballooned from an earlier estimate of RM27bn to RM46bn; so the PDP fee and expenses will run into the billions.

READ MORE:  Tow-trucks: Mah Hui responds to Penang CM, MBPP mayor

So there you have it – what the World Bank stipulates, what Koon Yew Yin said and what Tony Pua said. It’s not just me saying it.

This is why I believe the PDP system for Penang is fundamentally flawed and ridden with potential sources of conflict of interest. And I have said so loudly and clearly at each Penang Transport Council meeting I have attended.

Why is this important? Because we are talking about the use of RM46bn of public funds. No chicken feed, that.

Please help to support this blog if you can.

Read the commenting guidlelines for this blog.


  1. Anil
    Did you attend this Forum Talk by Ric Francis?
    Modern Trams: Are They Suitable for George Town and Penang?
    Date: 30th September 2016 (Friday)
    Time: 5.30pm
    Venue: Penang Heritage Trust, 26 Church Street, George Town

    Report of the forum on China Press, with picture:

    • not only that they have a photo of a empat mata fisherman protesting. like cat eating fish fisherman does not wear spec and what happen if drop into the sea often?? anil just pluck here and there like crane hook drops.

  2. In UK, they introduce new engineering contract and down under alliance contract or people private partnership. The client, contractor and engineer work as a team. If they made a profit, it is shared. If loss, they all bare the losses. Koon. Yew based old traditional contract. We are living in tree tops when world has move forward with new understanding

    • anil tell us. not a top secret? or tokong will kick you out? or teach tun lang how to muling around. fire tokong unlike tun lang all the cannon mouth and never act.

    • I am wondering how is the CM can do that so easily. Is this allowed based on the contractual terms? This is certainly kind of things only happens in Third World Banana Republics where the leaders make decisions on their whims and fancies and not based on rule of law or contractual agreements.

      BTW, we are still waiting for the CAT to reveal the contract…

    • what you know about contract? who is the employer? if calvin is not happy , he can bring up to from low court to highest court or duel in badminton. who is having a third world mind. no wonder kl air asia can fly backwards unknowingly¡¡¡

  3. 3 points:

    1) I like to highlight that despite the Penang Government’s procurement procedure has not achieved the standards proposed by Koon Yew Yin, it is more transparent than BN government’s so many mega projects in the past.

    2) The PTMP proposed by Halcrow (27b) underestimated the Tram construction cost (even Penang Forum acknowledged that) (by at least 4b) and was set for development up to year 2030.

    3) The updated PTMP with ‘ballooned cost’ (46b), was set for development up to year 2055; replace most of the routes with LRT & Monorail + new route, this increase the public transport cost by estimated 10b already… among other costs…

    • 1. More transparent? Care to elaborate on this point? The state govt is not even sharing any details of the project despite with the public yet came up with their projection. How transparent is this?

      3. Updated PTMP: I recall clearly that LGE saying monorail to be unsuitable for Penang when this was proposed by BN during the last GE. What has changed since that make Tokong see the wisdom of monorail?Care to enlighten us ? Also what changed in the new plan that added another Rm 10b to the cost? Don’t you think that Rm46B is a little too much for a public transportation project for a state like Penang when the population and income levels? The only way to finance this is to sell or reclaim more land that will destroy environment and decrease quality of life further. BTW where is the transparency when no one including those members in the state govt’s Transport Committee knows about these plans?

      • bn gomen promise to fund the trams and this all malaysians pay. now bn goes kangkong and private takes over. gamuda has to give donation, entertainment with chain of handouts. building islands need dredgers and our tin ore dredges long gone in ipoh. no more ipoh mari

    • Answers:

      Anil: Sorry, where did you get that RM4bn underestimation figure from?
      Answer: In the original Halcrow proposition the total tram cost (Georgetown Heritage + 3 routes) comes up to be 4.4b, based on 40m/km + 10m/km misc cost… Penang Forum newly proposed total tram cost is based on 80m/km + unknown misc cost + according to their intel, tram manufacturers quoted tram cost to be 83m/km – 115m/km + misc cost. So if you do the math, Penang Forum’s proposed tram cost would be about 80~100% more than Halcrow’s estimation.

      Calvin: More transparent?
      Answer: Yes, this is based on personal experience & also observation of you guys. We have many figures and charts to refer to whenever it’s about projects in Penang. There will always be MORE INFO to be revealed but seriously, those kind of info is supposedly only relevant for the engineers and people who execute the projects or consultants. Some are asking for info that don’t even exist yet years before implementation, only because Penang State Gov chose to announce things early on… When compare to BN projects, I have difficulty in finding much details (in depth like Penang project) and to me, that’s proof that Penang State gov is more transparent…

      Calvin: I recall clearly that LGE saying monorail to be unsuitable for Penang
      Answer: Yes he did say that, he had since changed his opinion. There are many reasons as to why Monorail & LRT are good alternatives for Penang. You may read the explanation by state.

      Calvin: Don’t you think that Rm46B is a little too much for a public transportation project for a state like Penang
      Answer: In case you are unclear, out of the original RM27b, only RM9b++ is for “public transportation”. And in the revised RM46b plan, I estimate RM19b++ is for public transportation portion… Since you think 46b is expensive, I think you should feel relieved bow that the actual cost for public transportation is only 19b.

      Calvin: The only way to finance this is to sell or reclaim more land that will destroy environment and decrease quality of life further.
      Answer: You are right about the environment part and I will not contest that. Without selling reclaimed lands, the state will never be able to finance any mega projects like this on their own.. In fact, even a 10b project would be a big burden for Penang…. (Penang Forum’s public transportation ONLY plan is about 13b, Note: Malay Mail misreported it as 15.5b) so even to execute a Tram +BRT system would probably be burden for Penang State to finance.

      • Whichever way you look at it and no matter how much you and the SRS public relations team try to market/spin the SRS proposal, trams and BRT are way cheaper than elevated LRT and monorail and PIL – even with the higher figures used by Penang Forum.

        So it is not surprising that more and more cities are turning to trams and/or BRT rather than elevated LRT and monorail.

        As for transparency, the 20-volume SRS proposal is still hidden from the public.

      • Notice how Anil did not counter any of my statements (sign of deflection) but merely commented something else.

        According to Penang Forum, their proposed Tram is ~4b more expensive than Halcrow’s proposal or OF COURSE apxx 2~3b cheaper than building LRT/Monorail even without adding 4th route. BUT, that is if their estimation is correct… SRS actually suggested the cost would be similar as 91% Trams would need to be elevated (Penang Forum suggested a mostly street-level tram)

        BRT is also part of Penang’s state plan – but Penang Forum’s BRT plan is more expansive and in my opinion, quite good.

        To summarize:
        1) The new plan is for up to year 2055
        2) Penang Forum’s proposal is only on the Public Transport portion (9 Billion) of the plan, it seems they are not interested in the other parts that include road repairs, walkways, bridges, the new highways and 3rd link, improving traffic systems, etc.
        3) Need a source of funding even if the Penang Forum plan is only 13b…

      • Nope, much of the BCF route, apart from the approach to George Town is based on elevated tram tracks, which is also what the state government’s consultants Halcrow had proposed with their est cost ranging from RM40-50m/km to RM80m/km (for elevated tracks).

        We also know that the SRS public relations team are hard at work all over the place trying to spin their humongous RM46bn proposal to the public. They have plenty of time for that.

      • I think you are wrong. Halcrow proposed a majority streel-level Tram that come up to be ~4.4b to implement (at about 50m/km), if Halcrow’s cost is based on majority elevated tram tracks, it would be ~85m/km or ~8b according to their own estimation. Then the original Halcrow Plan woul be about 31b instead of 27b…..

        SRS has their own objectives, and I had not come forth to say that what they proposed is definitely better or anything like that – I am merely pointing out certain facts and incomplete points in your presentation of the issue.

      • For the airport to Weld Quay route, Halcrow proposed a majority elevated tram route.

      • Sorry I misunderstood your sentence “Nope, much of the BCF route, apart from the approach to George Town is based on elevated tram tracks, which is also what the state government’s consultants Halcrow had proposed with their est cost ranging from RM40-50m/km to RM80m/km (for elevated tracks).”

        I wanted to say that Halcrow’s original estimation assumed almost entirely street-level trams (thus the tram track is only cost at 4.4b)… But According to BCF, tram manufacturer’s opinion was 83m/km -115/km… and Halcrow said 80m/km for elevated tracks…. Unless BCF is proposing an almost entirely street level tram tracks, their cost will surely exceed 4.4b…

      • Based on Halcrow these are the cost
        Georgetown – North Coast Tram (7km) 532m OR 76m/km
        Georgetown – Air Itam Tram (13km) 720m OR 55m/km
        Georgetown (Weld Quay) – Airport (22km) 1,171m OR 53m/km

        So your this statement
        “For the airport to Weld Quay route, Halcrow proposed a majority elevated tram route.”
        is most likely false….

        because the average cost is only 53m/km whereas Haclrow’s estimation said elevated tram is 80m/km

      • I was talking about the airport to Weld Quay route which is what SRS is focusing on in Phase 1 (in SRS proposal only until Komtar).

        Sorry, I meant Halcrow proposed segregated or elevated tracks (as opposed to shared with other road users) for much of the route. Thanks for pointing that out. (The RM50m/km I mentioned earlier is for segregated tracks.)

        Anyway, it still works out much cheaper than the RM6bn elevated LRT that SRS is proposing.

      • 1) The cost of the tram tracks has not taken into account land acquisition and utilities relocation cost among other costs
        2) The only way it can be cheaper than LRT/Monorail is if it’s not elevated.
        3) Street-level Trams will disrupt traffic flow and probably make roads narrower no matter how you put it, among other things…

        And Penang Forum in their proposal has been ambiguous about how they want to implement the Halcrow Tram suggestion…. Based on the numbers they quote (80m/km 83m/km 115m/km) it does seem they are proposing a lot of elevated Trams… Do you understand their plan 100%? Why not you explain what Penang Forum is suggesting for their trams?

        I have given them the benefit of doubt seeing they have good intentions… But after viewing both sides, I can relate more to SRS’s proposal (whatever released up to this point) compared to Penang Forum’s (both proposals are not 100% clear in what they want to do)

      • How can you view both sides when SRS’ 20-volume proposal remains hidden from the public? Do you know what the Pan Island Link entails and how many buildings will be affected by the highway and the elevated LRT, for instance?

      • Some correction on my part:
        Original Weld Quay – Airport Tram (*only* 17.4km) at 1,171m. so is 67m/km
        (Based on this number, sections of it may be elevated tracks as you suggested)

        New alignment Komtar – Airport elevated LRT (22km) at 4.84b so is 220m/km (estimated)

        No matter what, Tram will still cost much lesser than LRT. (As long as keeping most of the tracks on street level)

        But, the state still thinks LRT is the way to go. And I think as long as we have the facts right, I respect everyone’s opinion…

      • After going through what you mention and revisit the BCF plan, I realize that a lot of the parts I consider ambiguous can be answered by assuming the same answers provided by Halcrow proposal (detailed) about the implementation of Public Transport. I can go to say that BCF plan must be read hand-in-hand with the Halcrow Proposal Public Transport section to get the full picture, because BCF proposal itself does not provide a lot of data for reference…. BCF gave more info to substantiate the point of “why following Halcrow is better”…

        However I like to point out that the comparison given regarding trams in oversea are flawed… I have not check their other proof just assumed they are right…

      • Have you also looked at the cost of elevated LRT in other countries and considered why even fewer countries are building monorail these days?

      • Some countries who have their elevated LRT by 2015 or later
        – Ethiopia
        – Nigeria, Lagos
        – Taiwan Circular Line (KMRT)
        – Canada (several, undercon)

        Accordingly, from 2001 – 2016, there are 20 Monorail systems implemented across the globe (including 1 in Malaysia). China, South Korea and Turkmenistan just had theirs in 2015 & 2016 respectively. Apparently Nigeria is getting one as well.

        So your statement “why even fewer countries are building monorail these days?” is FALSE.

        What I do notice is – due to limitation of technology, tram was the only option back in the days and is more prevalent. The number of new Tram systems in recent years is actually lower (because there were so many in the past).

      • I said “these days”, not the last 16 years. Please list down how many have implemented successful monorail and elevated LRT projects in the last five years and compare that with trams.

        I notice you make no mention of any country in Europe. Are they avoiding monorails and elevated LRT for some reason while Penang is embracing the ‘cutting edge’ of (expensive) rail technology?

      • why follow europe when they have less kapcais? for 6 months kapcais have to be cold storaged. kapcais in europe are lone rangers whereas here. are all in the family. see the roti man on bike? which asian cities are having. trams? taiwan is using an existing track with extension. you never talk about hong kong which has trams for a long time. which asian trams have you been riding?

      • Since you decided to do comparison only for “these days” which is not the last 16 years, which according to you is “these days = 5 years”… and must only those completed… Let’s do this (Haih…)

        Last 16 years 20
        Last 5 years TOTAL 5

        Last 16 years 29
        Last 5 years 4

        Last 16 years 61
        Last 5 years 25

        The ratio of Monorail : LRT : Tram
        for past 16 years was 18% : 26% : 56%
        for past 5 years is 15% : 12% : 73%

        Europe has 8 Trams in the past 5 years and in general more than 90% are Tram in the past.

      • Shenzhen not long completed their MRT comprehensively or LRT. it is a city started not do long after black or white cat catch the mice. Again Deng favour CAT. My friend went to zhangjijie the avatar to see the highest and long bridge in the world. He left hk early in the morning by hk mrt, change to shenzhen mrt to catch the high speed train. In latter afternoon, he was at Avatar!! Try walking like in olden days of Wong Fei Hoong? One encounter bandits along the way. Why People complain about progress but the very same persons are buying SMART phones or even latest models. Go and beat drums if he wants to communicate long distance.

      • So refreshing to hear you engage Anil Kapoor with facts, however, Your assumption that BCF has the same objectives as the Halcrow reports is debatable, because Penang Forum and all the NGOs are all ready to Oppose Oppose Oppose the Tunnel and the 3 Highway projects , which Halcrow clearly states are critical for Penang’s future transport needs. But of course, Penang Forum people do not need these projects because they all own houses in the center of Georgetown.

      • Andy, fully concur. When cornered, they try to deflect and pour scour grapes and blame on others like Halcrow. They can watch over others but others have no right to watch over them.

      • the state assest is fixed if the area is fixed. if land is limited, things will be expensive due to limited supply. also one cannot have industries since they will be close to houses. so what kind of thinking? air asia flying backwards. investors are dumping money to increase the assets. once more land investors may leave the heritage and hill lands alone

      • Andy,

        1. Transparency – what transparency you are referring to? The state govt has been either misleading or refuse to divulge any information about these mega projects and it is only due to the tireless work of NGOS and people like Anil we even know about it. As I recall, the KVMRT projects have been announced years before and all the details and alignments were shared publically and the SPAD/Prasana folks even had roadshows on it. The design was also by the government planners and not something pushed out by some private companies. BTW, the request for contract details for the tunnel/highway projects was made months ago through FOI but your state govt is still refusing to reveal it. Why the reluctance when you claim to be a champion of openness and have CAT as your motto? Unless of course you have something to hide.

        2. Monorail – when if LGE changed his mind after talking so confidently in 2013 against monorail being unsuitable, it only shows that he doesn’t know what he was/is saying and depending on some private companies telling him.

        3. Rm46B – Irrespective of how much it is for public transportation, the Rm46B is way too high for Penang to afford when it’s annual budget is just Rm1.1B for 2016. This means it is embarking on a project 46 times its annual budget / income. This is reckless and irresponsible action that can bankrupt the state.

        4. Financing – No you are wrong. There are other ways to finance a public transport project than selling your family jewels. For example Selangor and Johor are also having such projects but sponsored federally and no doubt the same can be done. However LGE is embarking on a solo mission not because he won’t get the support but because he wants to control the project himself. That’s the only reason.

      • of course federal wants to control everything. it is not a federal or national transport. just look at pg ferry. what has anil and ngos did for the ferry? none because they may be invited to kamunting resort for nasi kandar by amno. but it is easy to chew and grind state gomen like amno pressing the ph button when goes wrong.

      • Dear Calvin,

        1) Transparency – I think we are looking at the same thing and you think it’s not transparent; while I think it is (more transparent compared to BN projects). You’ve given your reasoning; while my reason is because I can get so much more info on Penang projects readily compared to BN projects. Our opinion differs because of that.

        2) Both of us also agree that LGE changed his mind on use of monorail. While you think that means “he doesn’t know what he was/is saying and depend on private companies to tell him”; I think it’s common for people to change their mind once they learn more and get practical. Hypothetically, if he now change his mind again and decide to accept NGO’s suggestion – he can again be labelled and changing his mind again and depend on NGO to tell him what to do…

        3) As mentioned, the number is only seen to be huge because the entire plan is presented as a a whole – Public transportation is estimated to be 20b or more… As for the road repairs and new roads (6b is already scheduled to be paid for the 3 roads and 3rd link), traffic system improvement that must be spent, regardless, walkways & cycling lanes improvement (1b) had also been partially paid off… Even the Public Transport portion of Halcrow itself is 9.7b.

        9.7b is also 9 times of Penang’s annual state budget… is that not ALSO a lot??

        It won’t backrupt the state, because the project is paid using (salt water), reclaimed land that doesn’t exist yet, not using debts…

        4) Financing – Of course there are “other ways” such as getting federal funding and DONATION and even other forms of possible wishful thinking. I was talking about the only real option. Be practical. Yes, this is a solo mission by the state and yes the state has more control (agree)… And no “jewels” are being sold. The water is just sitting there till someone develops it. You can’t sell what you don’t have, and if you have an empty reclaimed land without development you’re wasting it anyway.

        Look at I rebut directly to each of their statements and they just throwing opinions out.

      • Andy,

        I respect you rational and objective style of engagement and speaking with facts and data which is atypical of the DAP supporters.

        1. As for transparency, you cannot say that Penang is more transparent than BN as DAP places itself on a higher plane in terms of governance. This is akin to claim that oh well I am more humble than Trump, which isn’t saying much.

        2. Monorail – it reflects badly on LGE to backtrack after making such boastful claim to denigrate monorail system. back in 2013 I can’t recall LGE explaining the rationale behind his sudden change of mind either. Of course you can change your mind or decisions when facts change but that’s not the case here as we expect leaders to have done their detailed calculations before opening their mouth – especially when they claim to be CAT.

        3. Budget – This is exactly my point. Penang simply cannot afford to embark on such mega project as they don’t have the funds which is partially due to the way tax are collected in Malaysia unlike for example in the US. However you don’t need to spend mega billions to have an efficient public transport system as PF has shown. In fact personally I would recommend a low-cost system. It is also incorrect to state that since it is paid using land and sea, it won’t make the state bankrupt. By overdeveloping the state, Penang is driving away it’s core people assets and losing economic and industrial advantage. This is something that is replaceable and once it is lost there is no way back. Penang is now run mostly on taxes collected on development projects and sales of land and this will stop one day and the state will find itself broke.

        4. Financing – Going solo it is not being practical – it is being political. The only person who benefits from such arrangement is DAP and their regime. With Fed funds, Penang get to use the taxes paid by Penangites which is rightfully theirs. Also this way no need to sell any crown jewels.

      • we have non amno ministers who has no authority. transport minister has no control over spad and cannot give green light to operate lrt brt or even run a school bus

      • Hi Calvin,

        1) In a way I agree with you. As I only say that Penang Gov is doing slightly better in the transparency department. It’s good enough for me as I personally feel the ease in getting key information at the right timing (there are times I have to wait it out a bit but in general I’m good). So this is a situation where some of the relatively more demanding people wants MORE transparency – I get that..

        2) I’m sure it reflect badly on LGE for some people (or at minimal given some an excuse to attack LGE). Unfortunately, we are living in an information-filled era and frankly, we may not have all the right facts in hand before able to give out an opinion. (Same applies for politicians and us alike.) I think it is important to do the right thing even if it mean changing our opinion once better information is available to us. And that’s what I am rooting for.

        3) As mentioned, even Halcrow’s Public Transport plan costs estimated 9.7 Billion, and PF’s suggestion costs more than that.. If we follow the rationale of strictly not embarking in “Mega Projects” or selling lands – no plan can be implemented. Some additional reference: The cycling paths / pedestrians walkways and public facilities (est. 1 Billion) were partially financed by private developers… The 3 new roads + 3rd link costs 6.34 Billion is to be financed by 110 Acre of reclaimed land (to be fully reclaimed) that the state is getting anyway… if the land was sold for money instead, the state would have to think of an alternative way to spend the money…

        4) As for the rest, I think it’s your opinion and I don’t have much to comment about that.

  4. This is the problem with DAP – preacher of democratic ideals and good governance at Putra Jaya while practitioner of cronyism, nepotism and an abuser of power at home.

    The concept of PDP is not just risky in terms of conflict of interests but also biased against the interests of people. While it did work at the new LRT/MRT lines at Federal level, it came with a price. In case of Penang, we can bet that in order to meet the project goals, the PDP and the state government will steamroll over all environmental and heritage concerns.

    We also can expect a huge increase in new players here coming to defend the DAP regime and abuse … those who raise objections or pose questions about these projects.

    I believe there is a reason behind the sudden loss of interests in the Tunnel plan and now a huge focus on getting the LRT.

    • why no objection and silent night from you when amno implement pdp and only make noise at dap gomen show your one side. backside

  5. Wan Azizah calls for action against guilty parties in Penang graft case

    PERMATANG PAUH: Action should be taken against anyone who is guilty in the case of alleged graft involving a DAP assemblyman’s father, said PKR President Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.

    “We don’t need to hide anything, if guilty, then be it,” she told reporters after opening PKR Permatang Pauh’s annual convention here here, today.

    Wan Azizah, who is also the MP for Permatang Pauh and Opposition leader, said she would leave the matter to the investigation authorities.

    The Penang state assemblyman’s father has been remanded seven days since last Friday to facilitate investigations into alleged “under-table dealings” for purchase of affordable homes in the state. — Bernama

    © New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd

  6. We have been over this topic before. Talking about the hypocritical and subjective standards and regulations of “international” agencies is a waste of time. They follow the dictates of their Western masters and make devious exceptions. Why do you think the TPP itself is now stalled? They support the most tyrannical regimes. They finance the most destructive projects. They insist that “developing” countries accept dangerous laws, industries, methods and products. Their motto of globalisation brings corruption, tsunamis of hot money flowing in and out, useless development and neo-colonialism. Their worship of wealth will destroy civilization in 10-20 years. Let us see what the ultra-rich will do when the temperature exceeds 50 C, there is no water or food, weather disasters (storms, floods, fires, etc.) have destroyed buildings and infrastructure, and the maddened hordes are breaking into their exclusive fortressess.

    • When the world is on the edge of self-destruction via economic-political-military-cultural ‘piranhas’, the masses will look to the wilderness (forest, outbacks, jungles, kampongs) for self-sustainance & safe refuge. The bags of money & gold + silver & rows of houses will be rendered worthless compared to jungle foods & natural water, yes water.
      Only if one has gone thro’ the pangs of hunger, the dryness + cracks of lips from thirst & bodily weakness in survival training does one appreciate what is more valuable in times of survival crisis.
      Cosmopolitan cafes & restaurants will be ravaged for whatever little scraps of food that’s left over in the kitchen dustbins. Supermarkets will finally be silent & their empty shelves only echo the sounds of housewives chattering. Hotels will be dangerous grounds for walk-in armed looters looking for warm blankets, pillows & spare slippers.
      The cities will be lawless territories of the vigilantes when the arm forces are no where to be seen (decimated by wars?). And religions may become the only hope in the hearts of those that still survive.
      Forget the politicians, some of whom may hunker in their own fortified silo-bunkers piled up with ration food & water deep in the desert floors or mountains.
      We still have a choice: either to foolishly swallow everything that comes our way from the global neo-colonialists (urban gentrification is no exception) or we use our God-given senses to discern what is good for our societies & reject what will eat us up (of our cultures, economies, nationhood, ethnics, values & beliefs).
      Try pu your toes into the Amazon River.

  7. Useless suggestion ! Where got “Neutral Party” with extensive experience with handling big transport projects in Malaysia ? Anil Kapoor should be pushing for a more equal, fair and comprehensive transport master plan that covers the entire island and mainland with fast public transport, unlike the Better Cheaper Faster which “”FOCUSES”” on the Heritage Zone and pretends Air Itam, Tanjong Bungah and Paya Terubong do not “”Exist””. No point arguing here, with these kind of petty arguments on useless things like “Neutral Party” , Penang people can continue to quietly suffer in silence for thew next 50 years as these NGOs bicker among themselves.

  8. Guidelines as it is a guide. UN should insist as Rulelines that must be strictly adhere to. But then UN is just a lame cat or dog can always get veto by the $trong Nations.

    Likewise the Cats can be bullied … when dedak runs out.

  9. It’s partner, OK? Now with all kind of hybrid project management, with all kind of confusion jargons… its actually incestuous contractual relation.

  10. Hi, Anil, please share with us the State Government’s respond every time you raise the conflict of interest issue during the Penang Transport Council meeting. Does the Chair give you an intelligent reply based on CAT?

    • Well, they just tell me that Gamuda will not be bidding. But then I ask what about related companies, subsidiaries etc?

      They also seem to add, well only if no one else bids, then maybe they might bid. But that’s precisely the problem.

      Earlier they said if Gamuda bids, they will be not be part of the tender evaluation process. But that still doesn’t eliminate the conflict of interest. Because SRS (which they are part of) came up with the proposal in the first place.

      • Thank you for sharing, Anil.
        One would assume it is hard for a contractor who has doubled up as a consultant to stay away from a contract unless he is explicitly told to stay out. No But and no If, just stay out no matter what.

      • Gamuda as SRC has to apply for licence from SPAD. No licence or permit from SPAD, no transport plan, no tram, no monrsil, no brt, no lrt.

      • Why don’t you also say this contractor has to apply SPAD for licence and route approval and operate? Mana ada itu system?

      • Don’t forget the Ferry routes. Wonder if the state government has asked this contractor to include applying for Ferry Licenses. I remember LGE said he had written to SPAD asking for 30 ferry licenses but was rejected.

      • Zoro, I assume you are better informed than you have shown. There are two related matters here. Firstly, Penang Ferry is for sales. Secondly, like you have mentioned earlier, the contractor is supposed to get license from the federal government agencies for the state. I believe getting ferry license is also within his realm of capability. Mind you, the contractor may get to design some ferry terminals and build them too. Hopefully, the state government will then realize that Penang does not need heavy infrastructures for LRT and monorail but more bus and ferry routes when the contractor is busy building ferry terminals.

      • mca transport minister has no power to give licence. even you use ebike needs licence from amno. you can build a jetty and row a boat but not run commercially. try to get a texi, or bus licence. you ask calvin sankaran why cant get a licence?

      • Anil, you definitely need to use a hand-held loud speaker.
        Either your words have fallen on deaf ears or they think the Pg Transport Council meeting is a Tua-Hee.
        They will take you round & round with every Cheng, Cheng, Cheng until the Teochew Pan is finished for the day! My hindsight, the CAT might have regretted for inviting you to the Council of Tua-Hee!
        Q: Why or how come no one else bid?
        With so many Malaysian contractors, don’t tell us they don’t want to touch?
        Forget about inviting any foreigner contractors if the gomen is sincere to ‘invigorate’ the local economy.
        CAT = Can Also Tipu!

  11. It’s partner, OK? Now with all kind of hybrid project management, with all kind of confusion jargons… its actually incestuous contractual relationship..


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here