PICC – a re-run of the unhappy Pisa saga?

The Penang Island Municipal Council (MPPP) has reported a record suplus of RM49 million for 2009 (RM20 million in 2008). But instead of making available more financial resources for essential services and amenities, the MPPP may be forced to fritter away its funds on the RM50 million Penang International Convention Centre (PICC) project.

More concerns have been raised by various quarters over PICC. What will happen to the Penang International Sports Arena (Pisa) during the construction and building of the PICC? What will happen to both Pisa and PICC when Ivory and IJM builds their own better convention centres? How does Penang plan to bring participants for events at PICC when only limited international flights come into Penang? Why would event managers want to come to PICC when KL, Bangkok and Singapore have better convention centres? What is the point of building an unattractive PICC without ancillary services at such a small location?

How much does it cost MPPP annually to maintain Pisa and the aquatic centre? What about repairs that have not been done for years? The aquatic centre apparently cannot be used due to a  lack of maintenance and Penang has to send its swimmers to train in Ipoh even when the centre is not leaking. We shouldn’t just talk about possible exhibitions at PICC – show us the feasibility studies, assuming they have been done. If not, how can anyone run the MPPP and the state government without feasibility studies?

Pisa and the aquatic centre were built on PDC land with MPPP funds amounting to RM110 million. The Penang Development Corporation (PDC) was supposed to run both but, from what I hear, it failed miserably. So these venues were then contracted out to a private company to run. Not quite sure about the details of the contract, but from what I hear, the MPPP pays a few thousand ringgit to the company to maintain the place and the company’s profits from events is shared with the MPPP. But the MPPP may be getting a raw deal out of Pisa as major maintenance such as lift maintenance and painting is apparently borne by the Council. (The contract with the company has now expired and is now extended on a month-to-month basis pending a state government decision on what to do with Pisa, according to a source.)

Some questions regarding Pisa:

• How much does MPPP earn annually as its share of profits from the private company managing Pisa?
• How much does MPPP incur on maintenance on Pisa and the aquatic centre annually?
• Who collects the car-parking fees in Pisa?

These questions are highly pertinent because PICC could end up like Pisa. The state government is making MPPP bear the costs of PICC – but after it is constructed, who will manage and bear the costs and who will earn the profit, if at all there is a profit?

What is the game plan in the name of transparency? Given the problems faced by Pisa and other projects, why are we using the same consultant/architect? Have we not learnt from Pisa?

It is great that the MPPP has tightened up on “leakages” and is now more efficient. But what is the point of a surplus in the MPPP’s budget when the Council is scrimping on improving basic amenities and services such as roads, pavements, public markets, street lighting, enforcement teams, and computerisation – while splashing its funds on the PICC instead?

Please concentrate on MPPP’s core activity – which is improving local council services to the wider public – rather than attending to a convention centre. Don’t squander ratepayers’ money on the PICC.