Abdullah’s last stand
In the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876, a hopelessly outnumbered General Custer, along with his Seventh Cavalry of the United States Army, was defeated by a combined Lakota-Northern Cheyenne force. Custer and his forces were outnumbered at least three to one. When the end came, it was swift, the final battle lasting only 30 minutes to an hour.
As Abdullah Badawi surveys the formidable gathering forces – Anwar and the Pakatan Rakyat, Tengku Razaleigh and Mukhriz, Mahathir and Najib – on the terrain around him, he could be forgiven for wanting to dig in deep and come out fighting with a slew of reforms. Why, even Hishamuddin has apologised!
But these reforms are likely to be too little too late. For one thing, he has not delivered where it matters most. Think of the yet-to-be-formed Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission, a truly independent judiciary, a fearlessly independent Election Commission, the release of the Hindraf and other ISA detainees and the repeal of repressive laws such as the ISA, the Printing Presses and Publications Act and the Universities and University Colleges Act.
The only real question now is how long he can last.
Abdullah’s second-chance reform drive
By Anil Netto
PENANG – Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has mounted a rearguard fight to salvage his leadership in the face of a poor electoral showing and formidable challenges to his rule, both from within and outside his United Malays Nasional Organization (UMNO) party.
Full story
Malaysia’s leading public intellectual Rustam Sani passes on
This morning, at around 2.30am, Rustam Sani, social critic, political analyst, author of books on Malay and Malaysian nationalism, former lecturer and politician, newspaper columnist and fellow blogger, passed away. He had been unwell for some time.
Rustam Sani, an Aliran member, was famously described by Jomo as “arguably Malaysia’s leading public intellectual”. It was only last night that Aliran posted his last commentary piece on its website – about Mahathir.
He was the son of one of the great tokohs of the independence era, Ahmad Boestaman of the Angkatan Pemuda Insaf. Boestaman would go on to become the first MP to be detained in independent Malaya.
More than that, I will miss Rustam because he was a good friend of mine. I would occasionally phone him when I was writing articles and he never failed to shed new insights into the local political situation.
These were the last two occasions I spoke to him when writing articles in December and March, after the general election:
‘Neo-liberal policies fuelling protests, not race’
I am glad he lived to see the sweeping political changes in the country. When he failed to update his blog, I would call up to find out what happened and he would tell me he was busy working on his books. He had just completed two – “Failed nation: Concerns of a Malaysian nationalist” and “Social roots of the Malay left” – which all of us should get copies of, in recognition of this unsung hero. The book launch was actually scheduled for 26 April. (I hope it goes ahead as planned.) (Update: Just spoke to Rustam’s daughter Ariani: She confirms that the book launch will go ahead at the Selangor State Library in Shah Alam this Saturday at 3.00pm.) These should be collectors’ items for all concerned Malaysians. I met him for the first time in 2000 in KL, when he was already not too well. Sharing a conversation over drinks, he struck me as a humble, open, friendly person with a sharp wit – a true Malaysian in his thinking. I feel privileged to have known him. Later, he would tell me that blogging suited him as he was not as mobile as before. Malaysia has lost one of her finest sons. May his soul rest in peace. And my deepest condolences to his family. Farewell, brother Rustam. If you know him or are familiar with his work, share your thoughts about him or pay your tribute to him in the comments below.
Independent ACA: Oh, really?
I hate to pour cold water on the euphoria over the announcement of an independent ACA. But what else can you think when you read between the lines of the following NST/Bernama report?
Notice that what will be independent is the Advisory Board to the ACA. So the board can only advise the ACA, but presumably the ACA is free to reject the “advice”. It would only be in terms of recruitment etc.
But who is ultimately responsible for the ACA then? The Parliamentary Committee? No way, Jose!
So how is that different from before, when the ACA was answerable to the PM? Is he just playing with words again – similar to his apology to the 1988 judicial crisis judges that wasn’t an apology but just an ex gratia payment in recognition of what they had to endure?
Why can’t he just say the ACA will be fully independent, answerable and responsible to Parliament and no one else – full-stop? What’s so difficult about that? Why does the PM need to be “responsible” for the ACA, like some kind of chaperone?
Will we see some ACA action in the 18 high-profile corruption cases? (As they say, the proof of the durian cake is in the eating…) Don’t count on it.
ACA to be made full-fledged commission by year-end
By BERNAMA
2008/04/21
The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) will be made a full-fledged commission to include a system of effective checks and balances and will be more independent in terms of its operations, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said today. The prime minister said this was one of the four key reform initiatives that would be carried out by the government by year-end in the move to address the public concerns on corruption in the country.
Abdullah said the key element of the commission would be the establishment of an independent corruption prevention advisory board whose members would be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the prime minister.
“Board members will advise the commission on administrative and operational matters. The board will also be briefed on cases that involve public interest and consequently can enquire or recommend that certain measures be undertaken.
“Most importantly, the board will act to assure the public that these public interest cases are being dealt with appropriately and adequately,” he said in a keynote address at the Asean Integrity Dialogue 2008, here.
Abdullah said a parliamentary committee on the prevention of corruption would also be established, to which the commission would table its annual report. Members of the committee could seek further clarification and explanation on the report.
He said the three other reforms were adding 5,000 more officers at all levels from various fields of expertise in the next five years to enhance the anti-corruption force as well as offering attractive new terms of service; introducing a legislation to provide comprehensive protection for whistle blowers and witnesses; and improving the public procurement process through measures that target and address specific problem areas in the system.
“I have directed the chief secretary to the government to work together with the Pemudah team to formulate a framework to improve the public procurement process, making it more transparent and accountable,” he said.
(Pemudah is a public-private sector initiative which aims to simplify business operations in Malaysia by improving government services.) Elaborating on the commission to reporters later, Abdullah said that though the commission would be required to table its annual report to the parliamentary committee, he would be responsible for the commission.
“There’s always a minister, anywhere in the world, responsible for any institution set up. And I will be responsible for the institution. In all the cases that we have studied it is the same because the government is responsible to parliament. They are representatives of the people, so they have to explain everything (to the people),” he said.
Touching on the independence of the commission, the prime minister said it would be independent in terms of recruitment as well as having its own policies, among others.
“It will have the power to hire and fire (personnel). It will have its own policies in terms of what it has to do. So that’s how they are going to operate.
“The Securities Commission also operates in the same way but it still has the minister responsible – the Minister of Finance,” he said, adding that it also meant more power for the commission to make decisions on many matters on its own.
Abdullah said the commission would be established based on the models of various countries known to be among the best in the world, such as Hong Kong’s.
On the parliamentary committee members, he said he would discuss with members of parliament on whom they wanted to sit on the committee.
To a question whether today’s announcement and the other reforms announced by him over the last several days were in response to the people’s message through the ballot box in last month’s general election, Abdullah said it was part of his efforts to fulfill the promises made during the 2004 general election.
“My critics will say anything. If I had done it before they would say I want votes. If I don’t do it, they would say I have forgotten my promises. All of these were in my manifesto for the 2004 elections.
“The manifesto of the 2004 elections is not just for a four or five-year term. It is intended for the longer term. Vision 2020 is what we want to achieve. It is a matter for whoever the prime minister is at that time but we must take the motion to make the reform.
“Reforms cannot be made quickly without really thinking about what needs to be done. You just can’t reform for the sake of reform. If the reforms are not effective, then they don’t mean anything,” he said.
Abdullah said he could not deliver on his promises much earlier as there were other matters that demanded priority. “But I don’t forget my promises. I will do it (fulfill them) when the time comes,” he said.
On a question about the legal protection of whistle blowers and witnesses, Abdullah said the attorney-general had already begun to work on it.
“But I would like to remind that while it is necessary to have this protection, it doesn’t mean there is unfettered freedom to just write about anything and everybody. I want them to be responsible for their report. They must know exactly what they say and the basis of their report,” he said.
Earlier, in his speech, Abdullah said he and the government were still very much committed to their pledge to fight corruption in the country.
He said vigorous efforts taken by the government over the past four years had yielded some positive results but the public expected more due to the fact that today’s citizens were better educated and more sophisticated in their thinking.
Abdullah said that following initial feedback from the public, the government found that the public’s frustration with today’s situation stemmed from three main sources.
“Firstly, people feel that the institutional and legal framework for anti-corruption remains structurally weak and therefore prone to abuses. They point to the need for a clear separation of powers between the institution of government as well as a higher degree of transparency and public accountability from enforcement agencies,” he said.
Secondly, said Abdullah, people perceived that anti-corruption enforcement was slow and inconsistent as some had said that the so-called “big fish” were protected while the “small fry” faced the full brunt of the law.
“Thirdly, many people feel that the existing public procurement system and procedures for awarding government contracts are rife with opportunities for corruption,” he said….
Watch out! They are still talking about monorail and Porr
Let’s face it. An underground rail system would be too expensive for Penang and, with 700,000 people on the island, it is doubtful if Penang has the passenger loads to justify such a heavy investment. They say a subway system would cost many times what a monorail would.
But even a 35-km monorail network would cost RM3.5 billion! I don’t see many cities using a monorail system as an effective people mover. (More often it is a tourist gimmick.) And even fewer heritage cities opt for monorails. KL is not exactly a shining advertisement for an efficient monorail system, is it? Remember how it had to be bailed out? Can you imagine how those ugly pillars will mar the heritage backdrop of George Town. It is for that reason that the city of Milan opted for trams rather than monorail.
And the Penang Outer (or is that “Outta”?) Ring Road (Porr) for RM1.1 billion? Come off it, we don’t need more cars, with oil prices spiralling and tolls skyrocketing and feeder roads already congested.
Monorail and Porr won’t be good for Penang – though it will surely be good for MRCB’s order book! (Don’t they just love such multi-billion ringgit projects!)
The bottom line should be the investment cost per passenger per kilometre compared to expected returns. Trams and buses would win hands down anytime. Not convinced? Ask the heritage city of Edinburgh.
Maybe the main reason a monorail system is so attractive is that the companies involved are politically well connected. Notice the name Scomi in this Edge report. Does it ring a bell? Remember Scomi was also reported as receiving the contract to supply the buses for RapidPenang.
27-03-2008: MRCB: Subway system is several times costlier than monorail by Jose Barrock
KUALA LUMPUR: While the suggestion from Penang’s new Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng to build a subway system in Penang as opposed to a monorail is technically feasible, it will cost considerably more, said Malaysian Resources Corp Bhd (MRCB) managing director Shahril Ridza Ridzuan at Invest Malaysia 2008.
MRCB was picked to build the monorail system by the Federal government.
“Engineering-wise it is not so much an issue. At the end of the day, it is whether it meets the requirements of what they (the state and federal governments) are trying to achieve on a technical point, or whether from a cost point of view it is attractive.
“A tunnel solution for public transport will cost substantially more, you are talking about maybe a factor of four or five times more depending on soil conditions,” said Shahril.
Lim said recently that a subway rail system could be considered over an overhead structure, as a subway system could also double up as a flood mitigation tunnel.
If the state government led by Lim insists on a subway system and not a monorail, this could trigger a bout of fresh negotiations. The estimated cost for the proposed overhead monorail system, which spans 35km, is RM3.5 billion.
A consortium headed by MRCB (other members include Scomi Group Bhd and Penang Port Sdn Bhd) had been given a letter of intent to build the Penang monorail system late last year. The letter of award, however, is pending with negotiations on the salient features still ongoing.
“At this stage, we have been awarded a letter of intent and we are in the final stages of negotiations with the potential client, Syarikat Prasarana (Negara Bhd).
“Syarikat Prasarana and the state will have to work together closely to determine the configurations. We stand ready to be guided by our potential client as to how they want to take this further,” Shahril added.
MRCB had recently commenced base level negotiations with Syarikat Prasarana, a company under the Minister of Finance Inc, which is in charge of the country’s public transportation system. However, it is still awaiting the conclusion of negotiations with the state authorities.
In Penang, other than the proposed monorail or subway project, MRCB’s Shahril said the group would also bid for the RM1.1 billion Penang Outer Ring Road project, which was mooted by the Government during the last budget. If secured, these projects would give a strong boost to MRCB’s existing orderbook of RM3 billion.
For the financial year ended Dec 31, 2007, MRCB posted a net profit of RM40.7 million on the back of RM903.7 million in sales.
MRCB closed three sen lower at RM1.36 yesterday. The stock has shed about 50% of its value since the beginning of the year.
In contrast, Edinburgh (pop 500,000) is one of latest cities to opt for trams. And like Penang, Edinburgh is a heritage city, its streets not any wider than Penang’s. The city is looking at trams to complement its excellent bus service. Check out this report. Notice that “every £1 invested to introduce trams provides £1.63 of benefits for Edinburgh. This return makes it an extremely good project”.Why trams?
Edinburgh has an excellent bus system, and the highest bus patronage per capita of any UK city except London. However, even with the current excellent bus services, further public transport improvements are essential to keep pace with the increasing growth of the city. Trams add a new element to Edinburgh’s existing public transport network and trams are more appealing to car users. Trams will be reliable, fast and will carry about 260 passengers each, reducing the environmental impact of vehicle emissions and helping to alleviate congestion.
The tram has been planned to work with the city’s bus network. Both Edinburgh trams and Lothian Buses will be owned by the City of Edinburgh Council, creating ideal conditions to run the bus and tram network as a truly integrated system. Trams will also work with other bus and train companies to try to achieve integration across the city and the region.
What are the benefits of trams? Trams are an efficient, attractive and reliable way to get around. They will be easily accessible, particularly to those with mobility difficulties, and will provide level boarding at all stops. Other features will include highly visible stops, real time information, easy to purchase tickets and security measures which include passenger attendants on every tram.The introduction of trams will have a positive impact on the image and status of the city. Benefits include attracting investment, increasing the attractiveness of Edinburgh to business, improving access for customers and staff, encouraging tourists to visit the city and an increase in civic pride and civic status.
Trams enable more people to travel to the city centre and retail areas. For example, Dublin has seen a 35% increase in footfall at an end-of-line shopping mall. In Strasbourg, the number of shoppers in the city centre on a Saturday rose from 88,000 in 1992 to 163,000 in 1997 after the opening of two tram lines.
Trams will help reduce congestion and are aimed to be successful in attracting motorists. Recent research shows that 20% of peak hour and 50% of weekend UK tram passengers previously travelled by car. In Nottingham and Dublin, two other cities which have recently introduced trams, passenger numbers have exceeded expectations. 8.5 million passengers used the Nottingham tram line in its first year, surpassing the predicted levels by around 14%. In the second year, there were 9.7 million trips, a further rise of 8%. One year after opening in June 2004, the LUAS tram system in Dublin had carried nearly 16.5 million passengers.
Also, every £1 invested to introduce trams provides £1.63 of benefits for Edinburgh. This return makes it an extremely good project. How were the tram routes selected? The routes were assessed on a number of criteria, in line with guidance from the Scottish Executive. These included environmental impact; economic and employment benefits; integration with other transport modes; improved safety and security; and ease of access to the residential and business community.
The line from Leith to Edinburgh Airport provides direct links from the city centre to the city’s economic growth areas, both commercial and residential, in the west of Edinburgh and Leith. It will also see the creation of major transport hubs at Haymarket, the foot of the Walk, St Andrew Square and Edinburgh Airport.
And how about this BBC report:
‘Trams bring many unique benefits’
Work on the project to bring trams to Edinburgh is well under way. Phil Wheeler, Edinburgh City Council’s transport convener, looks at the benefits he believes they will bring.
Over the past few years Edinburgh’s economy has been booming and all indications are that this period of prosperity is likely to continue.
With forecasters predicting as many as 30,000 new jobs in the next 10 years we have to plan for how a small city manages this type of growth.
We cannot build roads to meet the needs of our future, and present citizens, nor can we create more car parks to accommodate the growing number of vehicles coming into the city.
Edinburgh just does not have the space for this. So we must look for practical solutions and creating an integrated, high capacity public transport system is just such a solution.
Trams are integral to this. While Edinburgh has excellent bus services, buses are not the answer on their own.
They share the road network with other users, and can suffer from the consequences of road congestion, which means less reliability and higher operating costs.
‘Growing demand’
With a dedicated track and many sections off-road, trams are less susceptible to these problems and can carry three times more people than buses.
Without trams, there is no practical way to meet the growing demand for public transport along the booming waterfront to Airport route.
Buses will continue to be a hugely important part of our transport network though and will be integrated with trams.
Evidence from other cities where the introduction of trams has been hugely successful shows that commuters, residents, businesses and visitors enjoy quicker journeys to work and shops, more investment in the city, more accessible public transport and cleaner air.
Trams bring many more unique benefits to a city. People love using trams, so they bring new shoppers and residents into areas.
Critically, businesses know just how popular and beneficial trams are and are so very keen to be sited near them.
Extensive planning
This leads to more investment to a city. This can take the form of new jobs, new shops, new housing and new leisure opportunities.
Of course we’re aware that you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs and there will be disruption across the route while construction of the tram scheme is under way.
We do apologise for this, but the work that’s gone on so far has been undertaken with extensive planning and consultation with local communities and our contractors have striven where possible to ensure any disruption to homes and businesses is kept to a minimum and this will continue whenever a new work site gets under way.
It’s taken us a long time to get to this point and the proposals have not been without their detractors.
However, I believe the case for trams has been well made and I look forward to seeing them up-and-running on our streets in 2011.
So how is Penang any different from Edinburgh – though our bus service still has a long, long way to go. The point is why opt for expensive multi-billion ringgit solutions with either questionable returns or environmental problems? Notice that the RM4.3 billion (and rising?) second Penang bridge has already been delayed by nine months before actual construction work can even start. If we go down this path, expect huge cost-overruns, further delays and more disputes between consortium partners. What will happen to the fishing communities? Or are they irrelevant in this age of rising food prices?
Public transport can be improved in several ways:
- Come up with a state-wide public transport master plan to make sure the system is integrated. Don’t make the same mistakes that KL did with its piece-meal LRT and monorail systems.
- Get the interchanges right between ferry terminals and trams/buses, between trams and buses, between cross channel over-sea rail link and buses/trams, between KTM rail on the mainland and buses/trams. This is crucial for an integrated system.
- Think of a cross-channel rail link instead of the second road bridge. The additional lane on the Penang Bridge could be used for rail transport or build a parallel rail link.
- Expand the ferry service and build more terminals at other locations on both the mainland and the island. Remember, the ferry service has been intentionally neglected ever since the Penang Bridge was built, contributing to the congestion on the bridge. The old ferry terminal (which operated alongside the new one) that collapsed in Butterworth was never rebuilt. In fact, today there are only about half the number of ferries compared to the number plying the channel in the 1970s.
- Allow for trams and buses to complement each other. For an excellent bus network, check out the Curitiba rapid bus transit system.
- Appoint independent public transport consultants with no vested interests in large companies selling their monorail/LRT/subway/bridge wares. The prime objective should be what’s good for the people of Penang including local communities, and the state rather than for the order books of giant infrastructure firms.
- Discourage private vehicle ownership and stop building infrastructure for cars and other private vehicles. This will be easier to do once we have an excellent public transport system so that people have a viable and attractive alternative.
- Remember pedestrians and cyclists. Make the streets safer for them. Turn some of the streets in Penang to pedestrian walkways with sidewalk cafes.
- Don’t reinvent the wheel. Learn from Curitiba’s rapid bus transit system and its innovative urban development programme. Small can be beautiful and visionary too!
Curitiba and its visionary mayor
Residents of Curitiba, Brazil, think they live in the best city in the world, and a lot of outsiders agree. Curibita has 17 new parks, 90 miles of bike paths, trees everywhere, and traffic and garbage systems that officials from other cities come to study. Curibita’s mayor for twelve years, Jaime Lerner, has a 92 per cent approval rating.
There is nothing special about Curitiba’s history, location or population. Like all Latin American cities, the city has grown enormously – from 150,000 people in the 1950s to 1.6 million now. It has its share of squatter settlements, where fewer than half the people are literate. Curibita’s secret, insofar that it has one, seems to be simple willingness from the people at the top to get their kicks from solving problems.
Those people at the top started in the 1960s with a group of young architects who were not impressed by the urban fashion of borrowing money for big highways, massive buildings, shopping malls and other showy projects. They were thinking about the environment and about human needs. They approached Curibita’s mayor, pointed to the rapid growth of the city and made a case for better planning.
The mayor sponsored a contest for a Curibita master plan. He circulated the best entries, debated them with the citizens, and then turned the people’s comments over to the upstart architects, asking them to develop and implement a final plan.
Jaime Lerner was one of these architects. In 1971 he was appointed mayor by the then military government of Brazil.
Given Brazil’s economic situation, Lerner had to think small, cheap and participatory – which was how he was thinking anyway. He provided 1.5 million tree seedlings to neighbourhoods for them to plant and care for. (‘There is little in the architecture of a city that is more beautifully designed than a tree,’ says Lerner.)
He solved the city’s flood problems by diverting water from lowlands into lakes in the new parks. He hired teenagers to keep the parks clean.
He met resistance from shopkeepers when he proposed turning the downtown shopping district into a pedestrian zone, so he suggested a thirty-day trial. The zone was so popular that shopkeepers on the other streets asked to be included. Now one pedestrian street, the Rua das Flores, is lined with gardens tended by street children.
Orphaned or abandoned street children are a problem all over Brazil. Lerner got each industry, shop and institution to ‘adopt’ a few children, providing them with a daily meal and a small wage in exchange for simple maintenance gardening or office chores.
Another Lerner innovation was to organise the street vendors into a mobile, open-air fair that circulates through the city’s neighbourhoods.
Concentric circles of local bus lines connect to five lines that radiate from the centre of the city in a spider web pattern. On the radial lines, triple-compartment buses in their own traffic lanes carry three hundred passengers each. They go as fast as subway cars, but at one-eightieth the construction cost.
The buses stop at Plexiglas tube stations designed by Lerner. Passengers pay their fares, enter through one end of the tube, and exit from the other end. This system eliminates paying on board, and allows faster loading and unloading, less idling and air pollution, and a sheltered place for waiting – though the system is so efficient that there isn’t much waiting. There isn’t much littering either. There isn’t time.
Curitiba’s citizens separate their trash into just two categories, organic and inorganic, for pick-up by two kinds of trucks. Poor families in squatter settlements that are unreachable by trucks bring their trash bags to neighbourhood centres, where they can exchange them for bus tickets or for eggs, milk, oranges and potatoes, all bought from outlying farms.
The trash goes to a plant (itself built of recycled materials) that employs people to separate bottles from cans from plastic. The workers are handicapped people, recent immigrants, alcoholics.
Recovered materials are sold to local industries. Styrofoam is shredded to stuff quilt for the poor. The recycling programme costs no more than the old landfill, but the city is cleaner, there are more jobs, farmers are supported and the poor get food and transportation. Curitiba recycles two-thirds of it garbage – one of the highest rates of any city, north or south.
Curitiba builders get a tax break if their projects include green areas.
Jaime Lerner says, ‘There is no endeavour more noble than the attempt to achieve a collective dream. When a city accepts as a mandate its quality of life; when it respects the people who live in it; when it respects the environment; when it prepares for future generations, the people share the responsibility for that mandate, and this shared cause is the only way to achieve that collective dream.’ (globalideasbank.org)
An impassioned plea to save the environment from a 12-year-old
Severn Cullis-Suzuki, then 12, addresses the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZsDliXzyAY&hl=en&rel=0]
To all those greedy and wasteful people (and their corporations) who are destroying the environment, think of your children and your families and what kind of world you will leave behind for them.
Who is she? According to Wikipedia:
Severn Cullis-Suzuki (born 1979) is an environmental activist, speaker, television host and author. Born to writer Tara Elizabeth Cullis and Canadian geneticist and environmental activist David Suzuki, Cullis-Suzuki received a B.Sc. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from Yale University in 2002. She has spoken around the world about environmental issues, urging listeners to define their values, act with the future in mind, and take individual responsibility.
In 1992, at the age of 12, Cullis-Suzuki raised money with members of ECO, the Environmental Childrens Organization (a group she founded) to attend the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro. Along with group members Michelle Quigg, Vanessa Suttie, and Morgan Geisler, Severn presented environmental issues from a youth perspective at the Summit, where she received a standing ovation for a speech to the delegates. The group also addressed delegates at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).
5 state govts back call to free ISA detainees, Guan Eng tells Makkal Sakthi crowd
No letting up: Some 3,000 Makkal Sakthi and Hindraf supporters call for release of ISA detainees
For one moment, it looked as if the general election campaign was not yet over. The orange shirts were back in numbers. A similar crowd had packed the Penang Chinese Town Hall in the run-up to the general election.
Makkal Sakthi is still alive and kicking – and the newfound sense of solidarity has not abated one bit.
But how was Hindraf, the organiser, able to get a permit so easily for this gathering? Well, I suppose it helps if your star speaker is the Penang Chief Minister! Not that permits should be required for such gatherings. A couple of uniformed cops sat in the audience, a couple more outside the hall.
Syed Ibrahim, the coordinator of the Abolish ISA Movement (GMI), gave a run-down on why the ISA had to be abolished. Also on stage was human rights lawyer Latheefa Koya. It has been a long time since I had seen such a huge crowd enthusiastically calling for the release of ISA detainees. In between, cries of Makkal Sakthi! and Valga! (Long live people power!) pierced the air.
Grand reception: ISA detainees’ family members enter the hall to a rousing welcome
How times have changed. If we want to look at it from a racial point of view, you had a Malay activist addressing a largely Indian crowd at the Chinese Town Hall!
The fear is gone: Young girls sign a petition calling for the release of ISA detainees as Fadiah from the GMI/Bar Council Human Rights Sub-committee beams
I don’t think I have seen so many people queuing up to sign petitions calling for the release of ISA detainees. (Some of these detainees have been held for more than six years!) Where previously people would have been afraid or reluctant to sign such petitions, tonight there was no such fear. People were distributing all sorts of anti-ISA literature. Volunteers collected donations for the ISA detainees’ families. Amazing! Surely, it can’t be too long before the ISA is totally abolished.
Crowd puller: Guan Eng is mobbed outside the hall by Makkal Sakthi and Hindraf supporters after giving the five state governments’ backing for the release of ISA detainees
It was an especially meaningful occasion for Guan Eng. Tonight was exactly 19 years to the day since he was released from ISA detention in 1989.
Guan Eng delighted the audience in the packed hall when he told them, “You are not alone in your call for the release of ISA detainees. You have five state governments backing this call and I will take this message to Parliament!” he said to loud applause. He told the crowd that the huge swing in their votes had made a big difference in the general election this time.
The entire gathering rose to their feet to cheer when a petition calling for the release of the ISA detainees was later handed over to the Chief Minister.
Later, after the event, I ran into a few pals, J, M and S, at a hawker centre. Politics was the hot topic. J wanted to take a bet (beers and kacang!) that Anwar would be Prime Minister by 1 Sept while S and M looked sceptical.
All three of them wanted the ISA abolished. But M and S said they would first like Mahathir to experience what it felt like to be unjustly detained in Kamunting and cut off from loved ones. “Just for six months and then we can abolish the ISA!” said S.
I looked at S. He was serious.
J and I, however, felt that this would be wrong. No one deserves to be detained without trial, not even Mahathir or whoever else has used this harsh and evil law. Everyone has the right to a fair trial.
Powerful corporate interests penetrate Penang local councils
Just got a text message from an unhappy political scientist friend, who forwarded to me an sms that he had sent to a DAP rep in Penang:
People not happy with councillors appoint & list. old wine in new bottle. expect you guys to deliver your promises during election.
Also received another email from a concerned Penangite. Interesting that he also describes it as “old wine in new bottle”:now that the MPPP & MPSP councillors lists are out, I’m sure many of us are NOT happy — personally I think it is just old wine in new bottle, especially treating the political appointments as consolation for those left out in the election and also having the ADUNs doubling up as councillors as well.
isn’t it time the civil society rise up once again to make our displeasure and disappontment heard by the new state gov, to let them know loud and clear that this is a very bad move by them, and to remind them their promises during the run-up to the last GE?
There is a certain degree of dissatisfaction on the ground on this issue of appointments of councillors – although many are prepared to give the DAP-PKR a bit more time to get their act together and work towards local democracy. But that patience could wear thin if no progress is made in this direction – and the honeymoon period could end sooner than we think.
There can be no compromise on this issue. The Pakatan leaders have to get cracking and give us a quick timeline or roadmap of their path towards local council elections. After all, it was a major campaign pledge in Penang. And the longer it is delayed, the more disenchantment will brew among those who voted for PR.
We don’t want to be stuck with the same system of rewarding party loyalists by appointing them to local councils. That’s the BN style, and people expect the Pakatan to be different and to restore local democracy – pronto. They have to start finding ways and means of overcoming the legal hurdles and move in that direction quickly.
When the DAP mentioned that 10 NGO representatives would be included in the two municipals, many thought this would be a hugely significant interim step towards broader elected representation. Few thought that the term “NGOs” would encompass representatives from the various Chambers of Commerces.
Many were therefore taken aback when they realised that the corporate/business reps would outnumber the traditional “civil society” types. Out of the seven “NGO” reps actually appointed to the councils on the island and on the mainland, five represent corporate interests. In the Seberang Perai council, all three “NGO” reps are from commerce and industry: the Chinese and Indian Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers. Over on the island, the Malay and Chinese Chambers of Commerce have a rep each.
These Chamber reps represent powerful business and corporate interests and not the interests of the ordinary person on the street. One single rep from a Chamber of Commerce carries the weight of not just a single company but a whole battalion of business and corporate interests.
Many of the battles that the local councils will have to engage in are likely to pit them against corporate interests (including property developers) infringing on the rights of ordinary people or degrading the environment. Local councillors will also have to grapple with promoting accountability in the awarding of contracts and alienation of state land and gauge whether these deals would really be in the people’s interest. How can they do this easily when they have vested interests within their own ranks? Wouldn’t this give rise to cases of conflict of interest?
We have already witnessed the terrible degradation of the environment and the land scams in Penang – largely as a result of those with vested business interests cosying up to ruling politicians.
Now that these business reps have penetrated the councils, whose interests will they uphold during council meetings – corporate interests or the people’s interests? No prizes for guessing.
If they can include so many corporate reps, where are the reps from consumer groups, trade unions, community organisations, residents associations and senior citizens? What about those championing the cause of workers?
That said, I am pleased to see Lim Kah Cheng and Prof Francis Loh – the only non-party, non-business reps – among the ranks of the councillors. I’m sure they will want to push through some meaningful reforms, and I wish them well.
The clock is ticking for the Pakatan Rakyat state and local government. True, the people tolerated the BN’s nonsense (appointments of party loyalists to local councils) for decades. But the PR pledged to restore local government elections – and so they have a much shorter time frame to prove that they can do just that. They have to show they are working fast – and not wait until just before the next general election to make the appropriate noises.
Give the councils back to the people – not to corporate interests and not to political appointees. LIVE COVERAGE: PM announces Judicial Commission, stops short of apology
2145: The announcement of an ex gratia payment/financial compensation has not gone down well with some of the lawyers present. There is some discussion at the dinner tables about whether it would look as if judges could be sacked and later paid off as a crude way of saying sorry. One of the lawyers asks a family member of one of the affected judges in 1988 whether the Prime Minister’s words were sufficient and the response is an emphatic “No”. Others among the lawyers say they understand Abdullah’s predicament. If he had given an outright apology, he would have come under fire from opponents within his party.
2120: Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has stopped short of an apology in his speech titled Delivering Justice, Renewing Trust. The PM says that in recognition of what the sacked judges endured in 1988 and their sacrifice, the government will make an ex gratia payment to them or to their families. He concedes that the level of trust in the judiciary is not as strong as before and says there is a need for built-in safeguards. He adds that he has taken a leap of faith by appointing an outspoken maverick as de facto law minister. Then the big news: the setting up of a commission for judicial appointments – not immediately, but in the pipeline. The salary scheme for judges will also be reviewed to attract the best legal minds to the profession.
2101: It is the PM’s turn now.
2051: Zaid Ibrahim addresses the dinner. He quotes tongue in cheek from the 1970 movie “Love Story”: “Love means never having to say you’re sorry…” Does he know what the PM is going to say?
2039: Bar Council president Ambiga is giving her speech. She acknowledges the PM’s role in loosening the tight grip on fundamental rights, a lawyer tells me. She also proposes that the original wording of Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution be restored. And she wants the PM to look into the plight of ISA detainees.
2035: PM Abdullah Badawi arrives.
2000: Present among the 650 guests are Wan Azizah, Lim Kit Siang, Koh Tsu Koon, Salleh Abas, Dzaiddin and other judges and family members affected by the 1988 judicial crisis. Gani Patail and Zaid Ibrahim are also in attendance.
1930: The Bar Council dinner, jointly organised with the government, at the Marriot Hotel in KL gets under way. Among the guests is Samy Vellu. Lawyers murmur among themselves, “What’s he doing here?”
1800: A Singapore Straits Times report earlier today says Abdullah Badawi is expected to announce major reforms: a Judicial Commission to appoint judges, greater independence for the judiciary, financial compensation to sacked judges, and an expression of regret. We shall see. The report, however, quotes former Court of Appeal judge V C George as saying, “‘An apology or expression of regret would be sweeping everything that happened 20 years ago under the carpet… We need an investigation into the events of 1988 and to expose the conspiracy and its conspirators.”
Why spend only RM4 million on trams when you can spend billions on mega projects
The old tram tracks of George Town, freshly uncovered and preserved on Penang Road. Getting a basic tram service up and running will cost only RM4 million, says a consultant.
George Town once had a remarkable public transport system. It had these fascinating trams, which were affordable and people friendly.
Cities across the world, especially heritage cities, have found trams to be a cost-effective and reliable mode of transport. Some of the trams look really futuristic like those in Nottingham (please click this link to see what a modern tram looks like). Others blend in easily with the historical backdrop like some of those in Milan. Then there are variations such as the O-bahn in Adelaide.
Who says trams are old fashioned. This is a modern tram in Istanbul:
Now, imagine if we had this on the streets of Penang. The major advantage of trams is that they stop at street level, making it more accessible for passengers to hop on and off. Trams are suitable even in cities with narrow streets.
The Penang state government should speak to tram expert Ric Francis, who has been passionately advocating trams in Penang instead of a monorail. I attended a talk by Ric once and he was telling us how easy and inexpensive it was to get a tram system going in George Town. When the Jelutong Expressway was being constructed, he said it would be so easy to incorporate tram tracks along the highway.
It’s a real pity that no one who mattered was interested in listening to Ric. I wonder why – but then again, why build an inexpensive RM4 million tram system when you can spend billions building a monorail or a subway system. You know-lah why they like all those mega projects…
The Star Thursday, 9 November 2006 by Emmeline Tan
Bring back trams
Keep the monorail out of George Town and bring back the trams for the sake of the environment and heritage.
Engineer Ric Francis, who has been in the tram industry for 38 years, said there were many pitfalls to the proposed RM1.2bil monorail system that would connect the entire Penang island.
“Once the huge monorail structures are built in George Town, the heritage buildings will be totally eclipsed.
“Trams on the other hand, provide a nice, quiet, scenic journey,” said Francis, co-author of Penang Trams, Trolleybuses and Railways – Municipal Transport History 1880s-1963.
COLONIAL TRANSPORT SYSTEM:Francis showing his book on Penang trams.
Giving a lecture at the Penang Heritage Trust at Church Street recently, Francis said George Town Municipal electrical trams used from 1905 to 1936 reaped high profits until World War I when the supply of replacement parts was hampered.
He estimated that less than RM3.8mil (US$1mil) was needed to get an electrical tram system up and running in George Town.
“Old tramlines such as from Prangin Mall to Weld Quay still exists underneath the bitumen road and can be restored for use,” he said.
A 50m tramline was unearthed at the Chulia Street-Penang Road junction in 2004 during road works and was preserved by the Penang Municipal Council.
“There are many second- hand trams in other countries that are for purchase.”
Existing street poles could be used to support the one-cable electrical wiring for trams, he added.
“Trams are pollution-free and are being used in cities with narrow roads such as Amsterdam and Lisbon.
“There would not be the high cost of diesel to pay, and very little maintenance of parts compared to buses.”
To me, a tram system is much more cost-effective and aesthetically pleasing than a monorail network, especially for a heritage city like George Town and surrounding areas and even in Butterworth and Prai. The tram system could link up to a cross-channel light rail service alongside the Penang Bridge. Together with an expanded ferry service, an improved bus system, safe cycling paths and more pedestrian walkways, trams could transform Penang into a model city for sustainable public transport, besides enhancing George Town’s heritage setting and its quality of life.
Let me sign off with a lovely song (‘Peace Train’) by Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), who was inspired to write this while on a train.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sjSHazjrWg&hl=en&rel=0]Ten reasons why the second Penang bridge is not a great idea
Controversial second bridge: The site at Batu Kawan on the mainland as it looks now
- It will add to traffic congestion on the island. Even with an additional third lane, the existing Penang Bridge is expected to become congested again in a few years. That’s the rationale given for building a new bridge. But then, what will happen to the roads on Penang Island with all that traffic coming in? Green Lane and Scotland Road are already congested with no room for further widening. Has an independent EIA and traffic study – analysing the impact on surrounding areas and roads on the mainland and the island – been carried out for this project?
- We should be moving away from private vehicle transport and turning to public transport, not spending more money on infrastructure for private cars.
- Higher global oil prices costs will burden bridge users, what more if the bridge is more than 22-24km (17km over water) long. Oil prices will rise even further in coming years while Malaysia will become a net importer of oil in a few years.
- Toll charges on the second bridge are likely to be much higher than the RM7 on the existing bridge (a rate of RM9.40 has been mentioned), bearing in mind that the proposed bridge is over twice as long as the Penang Bridge. How many regular bridge users will be able to afford the higher toll and petrol charges?
- Higher toll rates on the new bridge will lead to hikes in the existing Penang Bridge toll (from RM7.00 to RM9.40 and no more 20 per cent discount for Touch ‘n’ Go users?) and ferry fares. (If the Penang Bridge toll and ferry fare is lower, few people will want to use the new bridge.)
- That would mean the tolls for the existing Penang Bridge will continue indefinitely even though the cost of the bridge has been recovered many, many times over.
- In July 2007, the estimated cost of the second bridge was RM2.7 billion. By October/November 2007, it had crept up to RM3 billion. By January 2008, it was between RM3 billion and RM4 billion. And now, it is at about RM4.3 billion! How much will the final cost come to upon completion of the bridge? (An expert familiar with bridge building told me that the cost of materials for a new bridge, based on the estimated built area, would quite likely be less than RM1 billion. So how do we get RM4.3 billion? Can we have a breakdown of this figure?) How were the contracts awarded to a joint-venture comprising China Harbour Engineering Corp, a unit of the state-owned China Communications Construction Group (CCCG), and United Engineers Malaysia Bhd, also a state-controlled company? The lack of open tenders could lead to inflated contract estimates. Penangites could end up saddled with the cost of the bridge and higher tolls for years to come while the toll revenues go to UEM/Putrajaya. The people of Penang could well have to stump out many times the cost of the new bridge in tolls, just as they have for the existing bridge. And what is the additional cost of making the bridge resistant to major earthquakes?
- The new bridge is likely to hurt the fishing industry in the southeast of the island, where fisher folks are already complaining about drastically reduced catches as a result of land reclamation. A Bernama report on 17 January said that the start of the second Penang bridge project had been delayed as the state government wanted to resolve several matters involving fishermen as well as fish and cockle breeders who would be affected by the project. Former chief minister Koh Tsu Koon said the project could affect the livelihood of 1,500 fishermen and the breeders, who were worried the project could threaten the area’s ecosystem. Will this deplete fish stocks and lead to higher seafood prices in Penang, making it affordable only to the elite? Has a study been done on the impact of the bridge on fisheries in the state?
- The money spent on the bridge would be better spent on quality public transport, social housing (instead of creating more high-rise slums), public health care and schools.
- The projected carbon footprint, the increased traffic, and the impact on global warming of this project is likely to be enormous. How many tons of raw material including metal, concrete, cable, electricity and fuel will be consumed in the construction of the bridge?
The Hanging Flowerpots of Butterworth
Unnecessary structures: Flimsy covered phone booths that fell apart soon after being installed
Weird and tacky lamp-posts: Each lamp-post had the letters MPSP up in lights! Notice the hooks where flower pots once hung (you can just about see the hooks below the four lamps). What they didn’t factor in was what a tough job watering the plants would be! I guess they simply gave up on watering them and all the plants probably died a slow death. Today the “Hanging Flowerpots of Butterworth” are history. (Reminds me of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon!) Wonder who got the contract to supply these lamp-posts.
I am not surprised that the Seberang Perai Municipal Coucil is almost broke. Over the years, they have indulged in all kinds of “beautification projects” costing hundreds of thousands of ringgit while the basics such as proper drains for the whole town were neglected. In the name of “beautification”, they put new pavements in – only to dig them up several years later and replace them with newer pavements, in many places where people hardly walked. They put up all kinds of weird structures – especially tacky, ornamental street lamp-posts and dim pavement lighting for pedestrians. These pedestrian lights were largely unnecessary because they were usually in places where people hardly walked at night or they were near the main street lights, so that the additional light provided was minimal. At about the same time, they put up these flimsy covered phone booths all over town, which started falling apart even before the phones could be installed! There was a beautiful green space in town, the padang – but then they erected this enormous dewan named after Abdullah Badawi’s father. You can see a bit of it on the right of the lamp-post above. Sadly, the field is I believe no longer big enough for the football league matches that were once played there, and which were avidly watched by some Butterworth residents. Almost all the recreational spaces in Butterworth have been lost. The tennis court next to the padang is no more. It has been converted to an artificial rock garden and pond with fountains, which few people actually visit. The entire beach front along Butterworth is not easily accessible to the public now, no thanks to the Butterworth Outer Ring Road. And then they wonder why the youth turn to unhealthy activities. Where are the open recreational spaces for them in town? Where are the parks? True, they planted lots of trees and shrubs, so that Butterworth today looks a lot greener – but how much did all those trees and shrubs cost? And what about those huge flowerpots on the road dividers? Meanwhile, the main drains of Butterworth, outside the town centre, remain in horrible condition with stagnant water, aggravated by haphazard ad hoc construction of drains by property developers. The amount of public money wasted on “beautification” projects over the years has been scandalous. And all the while, urban pioneers in “squatter” settlements lived in deplorable conditions not far away until many of them were evicted to make way for “development”. Hardly anyone in Butterworth knew who their town councillors were; nor did they know who was responsible for such extravagant expenditure. Butterworth is a prime example of why we need to bring back local council elections – and fast.Penang to make auditor’s findings public, says Lim By DERRICK VINESH derrickvinesh@thestar.com.my
BUTTERWORTH: The findings of the private auditor into the financial status of Seberang Prai Municipal Council (MPSP), whose reserves fell from RM229mil in 2000 to just RM25.6mil at the end of 2007, will be made public.
Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said the public had the right to know how the council’s reserves had come down.
“If the municipal council had built a lapangan terbang (airport) here, perhaps we can understand.
“But, there is no lapangan terbang and yet the money could terbang (fly),” he said.
Lim said those who were not involved in any mishandling of funds need not fear as the auditing process was merely aimed at improving the council’s performance.
“But the guilty ones who took public money and became very rich will be investigated,” he said when opening Bagan Dalam assemblyman A. Tanasekharan’s service centre in Jalan Bagan Luar here yesterday.
He said the new state government was worried the council would be broke by the end of the year.
Lim said many expected the new state government to continue helping the people with big projects, but that would not be possible when there were no more reserves.
“If there are disasters, we will definitely help the people. But to come up with projects, we must look at our financial situation first,” he said.
On April 1, state Local Government Committee chairman Chow Kon Yeow said the council, with an accumulated deficit of RM226mil over the last eight years, had been scraping the bottom of the barrel.
On April 4, former councillor Datuk Dr Loga Bala Mohan said large portions of the council’s reserves were spent on the State Stadium in Batu Kawan (RM110mil), the council’s headquarters (RM83mil), Dewan Milenium (RM24mil) and the Central Seberang Prai district sports complex (RM12.8mil).
Penang Consumer Protection Association president K. Koris said the council could have retained high reserves if it had asked for federal funds to build its headquarters and a district sports complex.
Sungai Dua assemblyman Datuk Jasmin Mohamed called for the council to tutup kedai (close shop) and hand over its duties to the state government if it was incapable of handling its finances.
He said the council’s land administrative duties should also be surrendered to the three district offices in Seberang Prai…
LIVE COVERAGE of the Penang Forum
People in the new Penang now feel more empowered in the struggle for justice
4.30pm – The world is watching civil society in Malaysia, which is blossoming and acting as real agents of change. “I’m enthralled by the response of you participants who have stayed on the whole day,” concludes Ahmad Chik, the moderator for the final session, thumping the table with satisfaction.
The participants of various ethnic and religious backgrounds, young and old, adopt a Penang Forum declaration for submission to the state government. Enthusiastic participants are signing up for various working committees, which will work on specific issues and come up with papers within three months. For the first time in years, many feel empowered and think they can make a difference.
4.00pm – Francis Loh points out that without local council elections, there is no mechanism to hold local councils accountable.
The Local Govt Elections Act 1960, Sec 5A (1) allows state governments in consultation with EC to hold local council elections. But the Local Government Act 1976 states that “all provisions relating to local government elections cease to have force or effect.” Still, Section 1A says the state authority may exempt any area within any local authority from the provisions of the LGA.
The Penang State Assembly can then introduce an enactment to revive local government elections. Or work towards amending the LGA in parliament to allow local government elections to be revived.
In the past, councillors (numbering 8-24 in all) were political appointees (largely male) and ultimately responsible to the state govt. Thus, the state was able to dictate the local govt agenda. The role of council president is critical but unfortunately, there has been no accountability.
Pending the reintroduction of council elections, there should be fair representation of women and other independent representatives. To promote accountability, council meetings should be made open to the public and the media. Similarly, committee meetings on land development, transport and environment matters, financial matters and tenders should also be open. Non-performing and corrupt councillors must be removed and detailed financial statements be made public.
NGOs can pursue partnerships with the new State Govt and hold regular meetings with the CM or Exco.
A restructuring of local govt in Penang is needed. Maybe there should be two councils on the island – one in Balik Pulau perhaps – and more than one on the mainland. Currently, less attention is given to the western side of the island and southern Prai.
Anwar Fazal suggests a whole new mechanism of neighbourhood councils, which would also build a community spirit. The role of public health inspectors should be expanded to look at public health as a total concept. New kinds of civil servants are needed to liaise with neighbourhood councils.
One participant requests that the city status of George Town be restored, receiving loud applause from the floor. Another adds that we should also push for an elected mayor.
S P Choong points out that massive development projects require that objections be accepted only from immediate neighbours – when the impact is felt in a much larger area. Moreover, no reason need be given for rejecting objections from neighbouring residents.
Francis stresses that one big way to deepen democracy is to decentralise decision-making. Local democracy would be a significant step in this direction.
Lin Lee suggests that the new state government review some of the contracts for services that had been contracted out to the federal level.
A librarian proposes a Freedom of Information Act.
The tempo is picking up. People are now queuing up at the mike to raise questions and comment on:
– public security
– the possibility of publishing a Penang Reader
– the need for civil society groups to link up with other groups in the Pakatan states
– the need to lobby MPs to reform immigration policies relating to migrant labour and refugees
– the importance of reducing garbage – more recycling is needed
– how health tourism is diverting resources from the public sector and worsening the unfair two-tier health care system
1.30pm – A university student spells out what is wrong with education. According to the THES ranking, Malaysian universities have been slipping off the radar of the world’s top universities. She highlights the impact of the University and University Colleges Act. Students are humans too (!) and therefore should be granted full human rights. The UUCA forbids students from saying or doing anything “which may be construed as expressing support, sympathy or opposition to any political party or trade union or as expressing support or sympathy with any unlawful organization, body or group of persons”. Lecturers too have to sign an Aku Janji pledge but dozens have refused.
She also speaks out against the corporatisation of universities, which has displaced academic culture with corporate culture. In its place has emerged a corporate and bureaucratic culture. Universities have begun to seek new sources of funding, introducing twinning programmes and raising student intakes. Students have been turned into products catering to the market.
12.59pm – A spirited Lim Kah Cheng draws loud applause when she suggests tax reforms to allow the state governments more say in deciding how our tax money is spent.
She explains that the politically correct term for disabled persons is persons with disabilities (PWDs). The ‘person’ comes first. Their actually needs are the same as the rest of us: quality education, decent incomes, leisure activities, the right to raise families, shopping and paying bills. But we tend to forget about them. We need a paradigm shift: PWDs need their rights promoted. Obstacles to access opportunities must be removed.
What is good for them is good for everyone e.g. ramps, lifts, bigger toilets, signages, larger print, disabled friendly public transport. A by-law in forces since 1993 requires all buildings to provide disabled access. Planning should be inclusive in its design and conception.
12.14pm – Kris Khaira then touches on workers’ issues. He highlights how the government has over the years been weakening the trade union movement. Workers who are active in unions can sometimes find themselves harassed by management.
One of the demands is three months’ maternity leave and one month paternity leave. The other demand is RM900 minimum wage and RM300 cost of living allowance and not more than 40 hours work a week. Jerit, an NGO coalition, has suggested a retrenchment fund should be set up with contributions from both employer (RM1 per worker) and employee (RM0.50). Alternative housing is also needed by retrenched plantation workers.
The same policies should be extended to migrant workers, who must be given the same rights.
11.46am – After animated conversations over the coffee break, the forum resumes. Many among the 150 participants, of diverse background and ethnic origins, are eager to speak and air their views. The next presenter, Prema Devaraj, calls on the state government to respond to the needs of women especially the protection of women and children.
We must ensure the full and equitable participation of women in the economy. Affordable facilities for child care are needed. Pay equity, flexibility of hours, a code of practice against sexual harassment and a minimum wage are needed. Training is also necessary to upgrade skills and empower women. A committee should also look into the rights of women migrant workers including domestic workers.
10.59am – Lin Lee briefs the audience on the world heritage listing for Penang. The application that has been submitted is titled “Historic Cities of the Straits: Malacca and George Town”.
She lists the advantages of a heritage listing: economic returns/appreciation in value, new business opportunities, increase in tourists, and prestige.
Conservation is needed to the protect heritage values and preserve cultural significance for present and future generations. Unesco requires a heritage management plan.
Threats arising from a heritage listing: tremendous development pressure, population pressure, environment pressure, and uncontrolled tourism.
Participation of and and benefit for local communities is critical. Local communities should be empowered and should enjoy the tangible benefits.
One participant brings to attention the importance of public libraries, which should be an essential component for cultural strategies.
10.40am – Tan Sooi Beng then speaks on the arts in Penang. Penang has rich and diverse cultures with home-grown singers, actors, and poets. We need to support the arts as it creates a sense of identity and social and political expression. It will have a positive impact on the youth. A culturally vibrant place can attract professionals to work in Penang.
But there is a lack of performance venues and rehearsal spaces, high rental costs and last-minute cancellations. Too many permits and high deposits. More arts events and festivals are needed featuring diverse cultural groups to bring audiences together and to provide space for local artistes to perform.
Himanshu Bhatt says there is no dearth of cultural facilities going on but what is required is more publicity for these events.
10.30am – A priority now is to do everything possible now to make subsidised public transport system like Rapid Penang work, says S P Choong.
One participant suggests that the second bridge be a dedicated light rail link to start from Butterworth and Prai and end up near the outskirts of George Town with a good bus feeder system. He says that the ferry service should be expanded rather than reduced as it is a delightful and practical way to commute.
Perhaps another possibility is an integrated subway system between the island and mainland, says another, while a third participant wonders how there can be a shift in the mindset of Penangites to turn to public transport.Another argues that the taxi service should be improved with the use of meters enforced so that more people will be encouraged to use this mode of transport.
Lin Lee recommends the O-bahn system found in Adelaide. It uses ordinary roads with a special fleet of buses. As it exits the city it uses an electrical rail system on river embankments. And it is cost efficient.
10.14am – One academic says we should also consider the rural situation and the situation in Seberang Prai in the forum.
9.56am – Dr S P Choong now talks about traffic snarls in Penang. Public transport should be an essential public service and subsidies are needed. What we need is a pro-public transport environment.
Penangites are car-dependent because it is a necessity. It is a necessity because there is a planning culture framed by a mindset which feels that public transport will never come. So there is a pro-car environment, streets are widened, pedestrian walkways are narrowed, one-way streets introduced. It is dangerous to even cycle. Penang has one of the highest vehicle ownership per capita in Malaysia – higher than Singapore and it is rising 10 per cent annually.
9.45am – Why are their so many high-end apartments in Tanjong Bunga – for foreigners, wonders a Penangite. What can ordinary Penangites do to preserve the environment? How was Singapore able to provide open spaces for 4 million people? Penang Island has only 700,000 residents. One possibility is to turn unused back-lanes in housing areas into green spaces. 9.40am – The people of Penang have to guide the new state government about their priorities, says a member from the floor. But only critical issues should be brought to their attention for immediate action, says another. 9.30am – Leong Yueh Kwong presents some of the serious environmental problems in Penang: the impact of land reclamation, hill slope development, the closure of beaches to the public. He also points out that there is a lack of recreational spaces in Penang. 9.15am – Ahmad Chik opens the Penang Forum, highlighting the role of NGOs and how they came together for last year’s Pesta Rakyat Merdeka. They also successfully opposed the Penang Global City Centre project. But the biggest breakthrough was the result of the 8 March general election, which has given many Penangites real hope that meaningful reforms are possible. There is a buzz of anticipation in the air among the 150 participants as the forum gets underway.Abad Naluri chairman quits; game over for Patrick
Just heard from a reliable source that Dato Sri Kamal Hashim, the chairman of Abad Naluri, has resigned from his position with immediate effect.
Kamal Hashim is presently the northern region director of The Star, which gave the launch of the PGCC by the prime minister last year prominent coverage.
It is also believed that the Prime Minister and his family are now distancing themselves from Patrick Lim, whose dealings exposed the BN to stinging criticism in the run-up to the general election – from opposition parties as well as from Mahathir.
Abad Naluri is the developer of the controversial PGCC project and was supposed to sign an agreement to buy and develop 300 acres of land in Batu Kawan as a replacement race-course for the Penang Turf Club.
These deals have been shrouded in controversy, and it is widely believed that powerful vested interests were the driving force behind them. In particular, the Penang state government has been asked to probe deeper and find out how Abad Naluri could end up buying 750 acres of prime land right next to the site of the proposed second bridge for Penang.
So who was really behind these land deals? As at October last year, the directors of Abad Naluri were Patrick Lim, Md Isahak bin Md Yusuf, Kamal Mohamed Hashim bin Che Din and Chin Pei Fung.
While much has been said of Patrick Lim’s interest in the PGCC, this could be a red herring as his Taman Equine firm only has a 25 per cent stake in the PGCC developer, Abad Naluri Sdn Bhd.
So who are the other major shareholders of Abad Naluri, which had an issued capital of only RM519,867? A company search revealed that the firm’s other main shareholders were Syed Jalaludin bin Syed Salim (Prof Tan Sri Dato’ Dr) (24 per cent) stake and Aneka Mayang Sdn Bhd (46 per cent). The rest were mainly small Chinese Malaysian shareholders holding 100 shares each.
Now let’s look at Abad Naluri’s biggest shareholder, Aneka Mayang Sdn Bhd. Surprise, surprise, Aneka Mayang is a RM2 company! One share each is held by, yes, Syed Jalaludin again and the other by Idris bin Denan. Imagine, a RM2 company has a 46 per cent interest in Abad Naluri, which in turn was supposed to undertake the RM25 billion PGCC project! Only in Malaysia…
Any of these individuals and firms could be proxies for other more powerful interests.
Although the end of the PGCC project is nigh, this does not mean we are going to get a People’s Park in Batu Gantong tomorrow.
For, would you believe it, certain members of the Turf Club are now salivating at the prospect of making a tidy profit from “developing” the Batu Gantung land for private gain.
A prominent member has circulated a proposal which would involve members buying the 259-acre plot of land from the Turf Club for RM488 million.
Under the proposal, the members would allocate 180 acres out of the 259 acres for property development. Basically, they want to build 581 bungalows (each 7,000-8,000 sq ft) and sell them to the members at RM100 sq ft. (The Turf Club has 581 members.) They also want to build a further 140 bungalows for sale to the public at RM200 sq ft.
Incidentally, the market value of the land is now around 250 sq ft.
Under this proposal, the profit from this property development would be RM115 million, which would be donated to charity. (But the members would already profit from buying the bungalows at a discounted price of only RM100 sg ft, which means each member would in effect make a cool unrealised profit of around RM1 million on top of the RM20,000 they had earlier received.)
The proposal also involves the members handing over the unused 79 acres as “open space” for a public park to the Penang state government. Wah, so generous! But hang on a minute – this “open space” is actually hill land and cemetery land (which cannot be developed in the first place) for crying out loud. Now I wonder how many people fancy strolling around hill-slopes and tombstones for their leisurely morning and evening walks.
Imagine, whoever came up with this hare-brained, land-grabbing proposal dares to call it a “win-win situation for all parties concerned”.
Let’s be clear. The land does not belong to individual Turf Club members so that they can profit from it. It was handed over to the Penang Turf Club by the State in 1935 for recreational use. The only reason we got into this mess is that the previous state government, with the connivance of vested interests, re-zoned this land to “mixed development”. It is time the new state government put a stop to this nonsense of certain quarters eyeing this precious green lung and wanting to “develop” it for personal profit. The land and surrounding areas should remain a heritage enclave and the only way that can happen is if the new state government re-zones the land back to its original status as “recreational” and turns it into a permanent People’s Park.
That should keep away the greedy vultures, now circling in the air while eyeing the carcass of the still-born PGCC below.
Karpal, Mahathir exchange letters on 1988 judicial crisis
On 27 March 2008, the MP for Bukit Gelugor, Karpal Singh, wrote to former premier Mahathir about the 1988 judicial crisis. “It is not the present Government which should apologise, but you yourself personally,” wrote Karpal. “Your culpability in the events leading to the dismissal of these three judges cannot have any justification in law or otherwise.”
“The necessity for you to apologise cries to high heaven. Your acts caused the judges concerned and their families untold pain and suffering.”
Karpal said he was writing to find out whether Mahathir was prepared to tender an unqualified and unconditional apology to Salleh Abas, George Seah and the family of the late Wan Suleiman Pawanteh, “who was one of the finest judges the judiciary ever had”.
It is imperative that the spirit of Wan Suleiman be appeased, he added. “This is the least you can do in your lifetime to atone for your actions for what transpired twenty years ago.
In an extraordinary letter to Karpal on 3 April 2008, Mahathir responded with guns blazing:
YB Mr Karpal Singh
Member of Parliament, Bukit Gelugor
Yang berhormat
Thank you for your letter.
You and my other detractors will never believe me whatever I may say. You are moved by pure hatred and I cannot respond to people who can never accept reality.
My conscience is clear. I have done what was my duty and I owe nobody any apology. I am sure you will make use of this letter to dirty my name further. That is your right. I think you are the most contemptible of politicians and individuals.
Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad
Karpal responded today in a press statement:I stand by what I have stated in my letter. I refer, in particular, to the last paragraph of Dr Mahathir’s letter where he calls me “the most contemptible of politicians and individuals.”
As Dr Mahathir is much older to me, I do not propose to hurt his feelings in the vein by which he has described me.
I would advise Dr Mahathir to take my views in his stride. I assure him I don’t hate him.
Karpal Singh
Ordinary Malaysians can gauge for themselves Mahathir’s role in this whole sordid affair. Why not let Tun Salleh provide an eye-witness account of what transpired. This account is based on his private notes and was reproduced in Aliran Monthly, soon after his dismissal in 1988:When I arrived at the Prime Minister’s Department I was met by a policeman who took me by lift to a waiting room. After waiting for about two or three minutes, I was shown into the Prime Minister’s Office by an officer, whom I did not recognise. There I found YAB Perdana Menteri (then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad) seated at his table with YAB Encik Ghafar Baba, Timbalan Perdana Menteri (then deputy prime minister) and Tan Sri Sallehuddin Mohamed, Ketua Setiausaha Negara (the then chief secretary to the government) seated at the same table opposite the Prime Minister. When I entered the room I gave the Prime Minister and the others my salam very loudly and he replied my salam. (Peace be on You).
After I had taken my seat, the Prime Minister told me that he had an unpleasant duty to perform and on being asked what it was, he replied that he had been asked by (the then) DYMM Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Di Pertuan Agong to tell me that I should step down. I then expressed my surprise in an Islamic way saying “Glory to God, who is free from any partnership.” Then I asked him for the reasons and in reply he said that he was not prepared to argue with me, but finally he said the reason was that I had written a letter to DYMM Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Di Pertuan Agong regarding the state of relationship between the Judiciary and the Executive. I told him that I wrote the letter simply because Judges, at a meeting on 25 March 1988, had informed me that they were very concerned about the present situation and asked to express their views through me. YAB Perdana Menteri then said that I made speeches indicating that I am biased and I am not qualified to sit in UMNO cases. I told him that I said nothing of that and the speeches I had made only dealt with the criticisms levelled at the Judiciary. I am not at all biased or bipartisan in political matters. While all this was going on, YAB Encik Ghafar Baba kept his head down while Tan Sri Sallehuddin was writing in a note book, which he was then holding.
When finally I said I would not resign, he told me that if I stepped down I would be given everything that I was entitled to. I told him that I was entitled to nothing since I was not yet 60. Obviously, he was surprised when told I was not 60 yet. Finally, he said that if I did not step down he would institute a Judicial Tribunal with a view to removing me. I told him I would not resign because if I did, I could not show my face to anyone and I might as well die.
He said that I could see the Agong if I wanted to and he would not stop me from doing so.
I told him that I would not be resigning and he could do what he pleased with me, including going ahead with the Tribunal. As there was nothing else to discuss, I finally said “Datuk, I should not waste anybody’s time”, and I shook his hand, also Encil Ghafar Baba’s and Tan Sri Sallehuddin’s. None of these three looked me right in my face and I could detect Encik Ghafar Baba was strangely silent and Tan Sri Sallehuddin only caught me by the side of his eyes but he too appeared to be subdued.
The Prime Minister himself, from the beginning to the end, did not even look me in the eye. He was looking down at his table all the time.
I left his room and I only saw one policeman outside his room who appeared surprised to see me there. When I went downstairs there was nobody even to see me off and no one called for my driver. I had to go out to look for my driver.
My future is tied up with the fate of this country. I come from an unknown family and I have reached the top of my profession. I have no desire to leave until I have reached the age of 65 like my predecessors, except the Sultan of Perak, who vacated the job because of a call of duty to be the Ruler of Perak. I leave my fate to the judgment of Allah and as it is Friday, I wish to quote the Quran, which says, “No misfortune will fall on us except what has been decreed by Allah. He is our protector and in whom the believers should place their trust.” This passage from the Quran struck my heart as I entered the door of the Prime Minister’s Office and it remained with me during the course of our discussion till the end, and to my exit from his room.
You be the judge!Patrick Lim and Penang Turf Club: The plot thickens
Turf Club will not extend deadline to Abad Naluri
Regina William, Bernard Cheah, Opalyn Mok and Husna Yusop
PENANG (April 7, 2008): The Penang Turf Club (PTC) today gave advance notice that it will not extend the deadline given to a property developer for the completion of the new racecourse in Batu Kawan after March 30, 2011.
In the club’s annual general meeting, members agreed that Abad Naluri Sdn Bhd will have to make good the agreement signed on March 23, 2003, for the completion of the new racecourse on the mainland by that date.
PTC member Tan Sri Tan Kok Ping, who spoke to reporters after the AGM, said no extension will be given after that.
“Abad Naluri Sdn Bhd has to build the new racecourse to the satisfaction of PTC members and if they don’t deliver, there will be no extension given. If halfway through the period and nothing is done, a RM10,000 penalty will be imposed each day.
“Members raised the issue about the new racecourse following latest developments and we were told that Abad Naluri has yet to complete the sale and purchase agreement with the Penang Development Corporation (PDC) and has yet to pay a single sen to PDC; hence they don’t even own a square inch of land in Batu Kawan,” Tan said to reporters after the AGM.
The deal was for Abad Naluri to complete the racecourse after which the PTC land on Jalan Batu Gantong would be transferred to Abad Naluri for the development of the Penang Global City Centre (PGCC) project.
He said Abad Naluri paid PTC RM10 million on March 23, 2003, after signing the agreement but has yet to pay the rest of the amount due to PTC.
The PTC was bought by Abad Naluri at RM488 million. The deal was that Abad Naluri would build the RM375 million racecourse in Batu Kawan and the rest was to be paid in cash to the PTC.
Tan said members asked why no approval had been given for the PGCC project even though it was launched by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in October 2007.
“Yet why was this not questioned by the Securities Commission? Nothing on this project has been submitted to the Commission,” he added.
Work on the RM25 billion PGCC project, which is included in the Northern Corridor Economic Region (NCER) blueprint, was supposed to start early 2009.
In December 2002, the PDC board approved the sale of 300ha in Batu Kawan to Syarikat Abad Naluri Sdn Bhd.
According to its principal agreement dated Jan 16, 2004, about 180ha was targeted for mixed development and the remainder for the proposed new racecourse.
To date, only land clearing and earthworks at the site had been done in December 2005. The site is located right next to that for the second Penang Bridge which links Batu Kawan on the mainland to Batu Maung on the island.
At its launch, Abdullah had said there should not be any unnecessary delays in the issuance of approvals for the project.
However, following public outcry against the project, earlier this year, ex-Chief Minister Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon said the developer had been asked to scale down the project and amend its development plans.
The fate of the project is now hanging in the balance following the trouncing of the Barisan Nasional in Penang. After he took over as Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng had said no approval had been given for the project at all, and as such the question of reviewing the project did not arise.
“Wang ehsan” model for Pakatan-controlled states?
The Star carries an alarming report today, the latest in developments which suggest that the BN-controlled Federal Government is looking into alternative models to by-pass the state governments in allocating federal funds to the various Pakatan Rakyat states.
Federal Govt mulling over project mechanism in Pakatan states
JITRA: The Government is seeking a suitable mechanism to ensure the smooth implementation of federal projects in Pakatan Rakyat-held states, said Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Mohd Johari Baharum.
Mohd Johari, who said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had appointed him to monitor the implementation of these projects, said the Government wanted the people to receive the benefits.
Mohd Johari, who is Kubang Pasu MP, said the Prime Minister’s Department was studying the mechanism used in Sabah, Kelantan and Terengganu to be implemented in Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor.
“So far, we have found that the mechanism used in Terengganu is the most suitable for these states. However, we need to improve on the mechanism,” he told reporters at a thanksgiving feast organised by him and Bukit Kayu Hitam assemblyman Datuk Mohd Zaini Japar.
Mohd Johari also said the department would re-structure the village development and security committees in Kedah so that they could continue to give their services to the people.
He said they would receive allowances from the federal government in the same way that they received the allowance when Barisan Nasional ruled Kedah.
The BN must realise that federal money is the people’s money. After all, the money comes from the people (and companies) through various taxes and from OUR (not the BN’s) petroleum resources. It is an insult to the people to think that only the BN can ensure that federal funds is used for the people’s benefit. From experience, many ordinary people felt otherwise and that is why the voted in droves for opposition parties. It is about time that reforms are instituted to de-centralise the allocations of federal funds so that state governments, elected by local residents, have a greater say in how they are disbursed. “No taxation without representation.” Unfortunately, the BN seems intent on moving us in the opposite direction, where state governments have less and less say in how the people’s money is being spent. If they think that is going to win back support for the BN from the people, they’ve got another thing coming… Political Tsunami II, perhaps?Pas MP receives standing ovation in Shah Alam Catholic Church
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpwAAWPK6pQ&rel=0&hl=en]
The MP for Shah Alam, Khalid Abdul Samad from Pas, received a standing ovation and thunderous applause from 350 parishioners of the Church of the Divine Merch in Shah Alam. He had offered to meet the parishioners for a dialogue session on 27 March.
“I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you for your support,” he said, adding that he had achieved a majority of 9,314 votes in Shah Alam.
“On the part of Pas, we will now be a coalition government. Our policies will be based on consensus. There will be no attempts by any member within Pas to impose any form of law on the general public. We will be fair and just.”
We will do as required by the community and what is good for the community, he added. “We will carry out our duties based on good governance, transparency and accountability. I hope you will continue to give us your support and your suggestions and we will try to be worthy of your trust.”
“Wall of sound” confronts Blair at Westminster Cathedral
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWuo1IrMoYY&rel=0&hl=en]
I used to walk along the aisles of the magnificent Westminster Cathedral, the “mother church” of the Catholic community in the UK, in awe of its unusual Byzantine style, its heavenly choirs and the majestic organ music that reverberated across its cavernous interior. The Cathedral has been described as “a very special place of prayer, a refuge from the busy city, a space to find one’s own thoughts.”
But last night how the Cathedral must have groaned and sighed as Tony Blair, the war criminal, took to the pulpit to preach on “Faith and Globalisation”. The former British premier converted to Catholicism last year but has so far not publicly apologised for the invasion of Iraq despite huge anti-war demonstrations and opposition from Pope John Paul II in 2003. More than a million Iraqis have died since the invasion.
As for other casualties, The Canadian reports:
Anti-war protesters, including Catholics, turned up outside the Cathedral yesterday to let Blair know exactly how they felt.While large U.S. media organizations like CNN, NBC, ABC, FOX and the New York Times document that about 4,000 US military personnel have lost their life, U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs data documents a death toll of over 74,000 U.S. military personnel from Iraq Wars, as of May 2007. Award-winning investigative journalist Dahr Jamail documents that the U.S. political-military-industrial complex is apparently pursuing a “divide and rule” strategy by actually arming the same groups, that are labelled as “extremists” or “terrorists” against a stated objective of “stability” and “peace” in Iraq.
Will Penang follow Selangor in banning hill-slope development?
Today’s entry is from a guest writer in Penang, someone concerned about the unchecked property development in the state and its devastating impact on the environment:
Heartening news today from Selangor where the new state government has announced a ban on development of hillslopes of 26 degrees gradient or more. When will Penang follow Selangor’s lead? Those who have not driven out to Batu Ferringhi recently will be in for a shock when they see what is happening to the hill slopes above Moonlight Bay, which now perhaps deserves the name Moonscape Bay! For months bulldozers and earth-movers have denuded the hills of tree cover up to the crest line to reveal acres of bare red lateritic soil on slopes which must well exceed 26 degrees. Approaching this scene from town the driver is welcomed by a large billboard with the words “A short drive up to paradise”(Someone sure has a warped sense of humour! — Anil). Today, when I visited the site to show a friend, the whole hillside had been draped in blue plastic sheeting, surely an acknowledgment by the developer that the work has created a massive environmental and safety problem. And further along the Batu Ferringhi road as you approach the Fort Auchry army camp on the right, dark green construction fencing has been erected along the left-hand side of the road for a project bearing the name “Plenitude”, evidently another scheme to build on fragile hillslopes still covered with jungle.Let’s hope the new state government takes note and puts a stop to such rapacious property development projects.
Patrick Lim’s horses of card come tumbling down
The Dream: Abad Naluri’s “cardboard horses” in Batu Kawan
It all seems to be going wrong for Patrick Lim. And not just on the East Coast. First, his RM25 billion Penang Global City Centre project has all but been killed off as a result of a concerted campaign by Penang civil society groups to save the Turf Club land on the island. Then, the Penang state government fell to opposition hands with even the Chief Minister soundly defeated. (The last time someone tried to muck around with a treasured landmark in Penang was in the late 1980s, when Vincent Tan’s Berjaya was eyeing Penang Hill. Civil society groups rose up in arms and mobilised the Penang people to oppose the greedy development. Perhaps that contributed to then chief minister Lim Chong Eu’s stunning defeat – and a setback for the Penang BN – in the 1990 general election. Some people never learn from history…) Now, Patrick Lim’s Equine/Abad Naluri has failed to deliver the new race-course in Batu Kawan on the mainland that it was supposed to build for the Penang Turf Club. In 2004, Abad Naluri entered into an agreement to acquire the Penang Turf Club site in Batu Gantung on the island for RM488 million. As part-payment in kind, it was supposed to build a “state of the art” race-course in Batu Kawan worth about RM375 million and hand it over to the Turf Club by 2007, whereupon Abad Naluri would pay the balance of about RM100 million to the Turf Club. That clearly has not happened.
And the reality: After four years, this is all they have to show
In fact, this is what the Batu Kawan race-course site looked like when I checked it out yesterday. Even the land-filling work, I believe, is being carried out by the Penang Development Corporation (so the purchase price of the land will very likely be a bit higher than that of unfilled land). Not a living creature in sight. Wait a minute, what’s this….
I looked for horses at the site – but all I could see were… cows!
Apparently, there is a principal agreement for 750 acres of the Batu Kawan land between the PDC and Abad Naluri. This agreement is believed to have a life-span of seven years and was also entered into in 2004; it includes the pricing and covers both the racecourse site and the land for Abad Naluri’s housing projects in Batu Kawan, a source familiar with the deal told me. It would be interesting to find out what kind of pricing is in the Principal Agreement, because the land in the local area is now said to have gone up to around RM15-16 per square foot. If the proposed second Penang Bridge project nearby goes ahead, the price could well rise further. Although the terms for the acquisition of the 300-acre racecourse site are said to have been finalised with the PDC, the actual Sale and Purchase Agreement between PDC and Abad Naluri has not yet been signed, from what I hear. The Penang State Government should check on this. If it is true, the PDC should hold back from signing it and instead allow the state government to review its options in the best interest of the people.
This is where the Second Penang Bridge is supposed to start on the mainland. Notice the clearing between the trees in the distance
Actually, Abad Naluri’s race-course site in Batu Kawan sits on prime land. It is just 0.5km away from the site where the proposed Second Bridge is supposed to land on the mainland. (Both sites actually share the same construction dirt track used by lorries and four-wheel-drives. It was a bumpy ride, believe me!) The ground-breaking ceremony of the second bridge site was officiated by Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi in 2006.
On the other side of the Second Bridge site lie Equine/Abad Naluri’s office, show units and more prime land belonging to the firm
Abad Naluri’s land in Batu Kawan really could not get much closer to the site of the proposed second bridge. How was it able to buy land with the proposed bridge set to land right smack in between its new racecourse and property development sites? At what price? Tell me it was all just a happy coincidence…
Meanwhile, back at the ranch…
At the Penang Turf Club, questions are swirling around ahead of an AGM on 7 April. As Abad Naluri has failed to deliver the new racecourse on time, the principal agreement between Penang Turf Club and Abad Naluri for the sale of the Batu Gantung land has lapsed, according to a source. Even as I write, the source tells me that the Club and Abad Naluri are renegotiating a fresh deal to extend the time frame for handing over the Batu Kawan race-course by three years. Lots of other questions are also being asked by members of the Turf Club. Has Abad Naluri actually paid the PDC for the Batu Kawan land? How much is due to PDC for the land? Has the ownership title of the Batu Kawan site even been transferred to Abad Naluri? Have PDC and the state authorities approved the conversion of the Batu Kawan land for use as a race-course? What about the layout plan conversion? Has the planning permission application been submitted? Obviously, there has been little progress on the Batu Kawan race-course, so there’s no need to ask if the architects have certified the progress of the construction of the new race-course! One source told me the Turf Club was supposed to have set up a project team to audit the progress of the Batu Kawan race-course construction. If the team has been set up, what are their findings? Is there a penalty clause in the principal agreement (between Abad Naluri and the Penang Turf Club) for late handover of the Batu Kawan racecourse? Of course, questions are also being raised about the extent to which the proposed – but hopefully aborted – Penang Outer Ring Road project will impact on the Penang Turf Club’s existing site. If the Turf Club does come up with a new agreement with Abad Naluri, will it take into account the appreciation of the land since 2004, when the land was deemed to be worth RM43psf or RM488 million? The land value is now said to be worth at least RM250psf. Can Abad Naluri afford that? Penang Turf Club members will surely want to know whether the Club had officially complained to Abad Naluri about the launch of the PGCC by Prime Minister Abdullah last year at a time when the land ownership of the PGCC site had not yet even been handed over to Abad Naluri. What has the Securities Commission got to say about the much-trumpeted launch of the PGCC last year? Questions, questions…. It should be an interesting Penang Turf Club AGM to say the least! What is fascinating is that it looks like Abad Naluri has spent very little cash so far on both the existing race-course site and the Batu Kawan new race-course site (if it is true it has not paid the PDC for that). Yet, it has very nearly acquired two vast tracts of prime land on the island and on the mainland! Amazing… But it looks like it’s “game over” for Patrick – unless the Penang Turf Club inexplicably grants him a three-year extension! Now we have a God-sent opportunity to stop these deals in their tracks and work towards the creation of a People’s Park in Penang on the existing Turf Club site. Here’s what the new Penang state government should consider:- In view of Abad Naluri’s failure to deliver the completed racecourse in time, take back the Batu Kawan land, especially if no S & P has been signed.
- Scrutinise the whole deal and find out how Equine/Abad Naluri was able to acquire 750 acres of prime land in Batu Kawan. Who exactly was the driving force behind the deal?
- Re-gazette the Penang Turf Club’s existing land back to permanent recreational status so that no other developer can grab hold of it in future.
- Offer the Batu Kawan land to the Turf Club in exchange for the State taking over the existing Turf Club site on the island. If the Second Bridge does start in Batu Kawan, the mainland race-course will sit on prime land. Even if the Second Bridge is aborted, Batu Kawan remains an upcoming township and land prices there should rise.
- Turn the existing Turf Club land into a People’s Park. And don’t forget to set aside land for a second People’s Park in Batu Kawan as well.