Stop collection for the “half-baked” SMART tunnel

I have just got back from a press conference at Cheras MP YB Tan Kok Wai’s office on  the issues of SMART system and KL floods. MPs present include Fong Kui Lun (Bukit Bintang), Teresa Kok (Seputeh) and Tan Kok Wai (Cheras).

The SMART cost RM2.168 billion to build, of which more RM1.5 billion was paid by the Federal Government. The developer MMC-Gamuda only paid about RM600 million. SMART was originally to be completed by end 2006. But it will only be ready by 23 June 2007.

SMART has started to collect toll fees on 15 June 2007 (RM2.00 one way) despite of the fact that it was uncompleted (the flood tunnels).

DAP have suggested that there must a stringent schedule of maintenance to ensure the safety and comfort of the tunnels and stop the collection of toll fees before the tunnels were compeleted on 23 June 2007.

Besides showing the video clips taken at the tunnels on 12 June 2007 (it’s now on youtube, under very “Smart” Tunnel in Malaysia), we have also released a statement prepared with the help of some experts…

Observations, Questions and Suggestions by a structural engineer after an inspection of the not so Smart tunnel on Tuesday (12 June 2007) afternoon…   

Observations… 

1.                   There are plenty of minor defects. Water was seen seeping through from both the soffits on the top and the slabs on the floors. These could be seen even with naked eyes if one travels with a low speed. One could see plenty of holes left behind by extensive pressure grouting. Grouting was carried extensively, indicating that structural hairline cracks were everywhere. But pressure grouting is only a temporary measure but certainly not a permanent or proper remedy.

2.                   The workmanship of the tunnels was poor and far from satisfactory in view of the high cost of construction (more than RM2.1 billion).

3.                   Cladding was done extensively on most parts of the tunnels. This is highly improper and unnecessary because cladding makes detection of defects (such as cracks) very difficult if not impossible.

4.                   Pressure grouting is an expensive process. It could runs into millions of ringgit over a period of time.

5.                   The ‘riding quality’ of the tunnels was very poor. Driving through the tunnels is not very pleasant.  

Questions… 

1.                   What is the actual cost of construction of the entire Smart system?

2.                   Why the foreign company involved in drilling of the tunnels abandoned the job? Was there a legal tussle between MMC- Gamuda and the foreign company who was trusted to do the drilling?

3.                   Why the government bulldozed through the project despite of the peculiar underground limestone structure, which makes drilling and construction of tunnels very difficult and uneconomical?

4.                   How effective the Smart system would be in terms of flood mitigation? The DID itself has openly admitted that the flood mitigation function of the Smart system, at the most, could only achieve some 60%. How the DID arrives at such conclusion?

5.                   If the entire Smart system could be used for flood mitigation, why cladding was done so extensively? And if the second level could also be used for flood mitigation as well (as reported by TV3 evening news on Wednesday 12 June 2007), what will happen to the lightings, equipments and road furniture? What kind of cocks and bulls story is this? 

Suggestions… 

1.                   Maintenance is utmost important for the tunnels. A stringent schedule of maintenance must be adhered to at all times to ensure the safety and comfort of the tunnel users.

2.                   No collection of toll fees to be allowed before the entire tunnel was completed for full operation (including flood mitigation). Precedent must not be set in this case. If the entire Smart tunnel system could only be completed on or after 23 June 2007, any collection of toll fees should only be imposed after the date of completion.

多處紕漏火箭促政府解釋 “精明渠道要多少錢維修？”

GuangMing Daily News 

updated:2007-06-16 19:01:23 MYT

■行動黨領袖一同觀看巡視精明渠道時所拍下的錄影片段。左起李映霞、方貴倫、郭素沁、陳國偉（坐者）及劉天球。(放大)

■行動黨指渠道的跑道和壁上出現水跡和漏水，希望政府解釋。(放大)

■專家指精明渠道出現多處紕漏，如地面有許多肉眼看見的裂痕。(放大)

（吉隆坡訊）行動黨雪隆區國會議員及領袖近日帶領專家巡視精明渠道，並發現渠道出現漏水、裂痕等紕漏。他們認為，政府有必要向人民交代精明渠道所面對的問題，並要求進行防洪大演習，以證明渠道是“真材實料”所打造的。

行動黨領袖今日（週六，16日）在蕉賴舉辦記者會，發表專家對精明渠道作出的評估。
行動黨中委劉天球向記者指出，他們於6月12日帶領一名建筑結構專家，前往巡視精明渠道。

指造價與品不符

他說，不便上報的專家事後作出5項結論和疑問，主要指精明渠道的品質欠佳，與耗資超過20億令吉打造的價格不符。

他聲稱，專家指渠道的地面和頂部多處出現裂痕，有的裂痕還在漏水。

他提出，他們發現渠道頂部有一排排的洞孔，專家指洞孔是維修裂痕及注入水泥（pressure grouting）所致，與甲洞第二中環公路出現裂痕時的維修手法相同。

“專家指這種維修方式非常昂貴，長久下來可要耗資百萬令吉。”

他們也發現，從新街場往市中心的路段沒有裝上天花板，可明顯看到裂縫和漏水問題處處。反而隆市返回新街場路段則蓋上天花板。

他聲稱，其他問題還包括跑道凹凸不平、緊急路段淹水等。

他說，政府已耗資龐大經費筑建精明渠道，但渠道至今卻出現各種紕漏，“我們迫切需要知道，渠道日後還要多少附加工程或維修費才夠？”

他指出，據知筑建精明渠道的承包商當初與另一家德國公司一同進行渠道礸洞工程，不過，後者不知為何在工程半途退出，並要起訴本地承包商。

他補充，他們要政府證實德國公司在筑建半途退出及起訴本地承包商的事件，並解釋精明渠道一切的紕漏及解決方法。

渠道是否有效防洪？
當局應進行水災演習

行動黨蕉賴區國會議員陳國偉指出，政府當初是以解決隆市水災問題而宣佈興建精明渠道，但精明渠道未完全啟用前，卻傳出渠道只能排解60%，甚至一半的豪雨量，令人民有受騙的感覺。

他認為，防洪精明渠道在還沒完全啟用前不應收費。“我們還不知道渠道是否有對防洪有效，當局應進行水災演習證明一切。”

隆地質不適建地下道

他週六在記者會上披露，隆市的地質不適合筑建地下隧道，這就是為何大馬一直不筑建地下鐵的原因之一。

“我們不明白政府在確知隆市不適合建地下隧道時，仍執意興建精明渠道，而且還要一道兩用（車行及防洪）。”

他提到，政府是精明渠道最大承包商，並有能力繳付所有工程費，但政府仍批准只耗資28.6%工程費的承包商向人民收取40年過路費。

武吉免登區國會議員方貴倫則說，精明渠道原定於2006年12月31日竣工，但工程拖延半年後才完成，而且沒向首相或人民匯報。

士布爹國會議員郭素沁聲稱，精明渠道是在環境評估報告仍末出爐前動工，這已嚴重破壞環境。

她認為，政府欲解決隆市水災問題，首要任務是進行良好城市規劃，而不是隨意發出批准，以致各地區在過度發展的情況下面對基本設施欠佳、水災等問題。

行動黨社青團國際秘書李映霞披露，政府應公佈精明渠道合約內容，並確保渠道的安全性，“因為政府是精明渠道最大的投資者，所以，納稅人有知到真相的權力。”

專家對精明渠道結論

1. 渠道地面和頂部出現許多裂痕，肉眼看出許多水從裂縫流出。另有一排排維修裂痕及注入水泥的洞孔。
2. 渠道的品質欠佳，與21億的工程費不符。
3. 部份渠道筑上天花板，而部份渠道則沒有。
4. 維修裂痕及注入水泥（pressure grouting）費用昂貴，長期的費用達數百萬。
5. 道路凹凸不平。

專家疑問

1. 除了原有的工程費，還需要多少的附加工程費及維修費？
2. 承建精明渠道的德國公司突然退出，並起訴主要承包商，原因何在？
3. 為何政府執意在不適合興建隧道的隆市建精明渠道？
4. 精明渠道是否有效防洪？
5. 曾有電視媒體報導，指精明渠道在有必要時開放所有渠道，包括車道排解豪雨。試問跑道理所有設備，如電燈、抽氣風扇、路牌等可否會一概被淹沒和沖走？

行動黨的建議

1. 要求政府採取最嚴格工程，以確保渠道達到防洪及安全狀況。
2. 要渠道末完全啟用前，不應徵收過路費。

（光明日報•2007.06.16）

Initial observations on the not so SMART tunnels

Someone alerted me about this piece of news in The Star (”Pool of water in the middle of tunnel” Thursday 14 June 2007 Page N6). The short report says that  ”motorists using the SMART tunnel to travel from Jalan Tun Razak to Sungei Besi were shocked to find a pool of water along a 20m stretch of the emergency lane yesterday…Smart officials could not be reached for comments”.  

As promised in my blog last week, I will be conducting a PC together with DAP MPs tomorrow on the issue of KL floods and Smart tunnels. We are going to inform the public about our findings after inspecting the SMARTsystem with some engineering and water-proofing experts. 

Before that, let me share with bloggers an initial observations in the eyes of a water-proofing expert…  

An initial account on the Smart (Stormwater Management and Road tunnel ) 

1. Too many structural hairline cracks on soffit of slabs and sides of Reinforced Concrete walls. Water marks are clearly visible on both incidences. And remedy work of pressure grouting have been carried out at an interval of 4” to 6” centre –to – centre on all the cracks.
2. Eve the road slabs have cracks and also have been grouted. And there are few spots where water is seeping out and flowing.
3. Previous leakage marks which have been treated have water stains which is clear to naked eyes.
4. Certain portions of the soffit of slabs is covered with ceilings and painted up. Not sure of what was beneath the covers.
5. Pressure grouting is only done when there were deep structural cracks and water seeping through it.
6. Structural cracks can elongate due to vibrations, earthquake and movement of heavy vehicles. Elongation can go on for a long time and no proper remedy to it.

  Possibilities of structural hairline cracks

·        Due to thickness of concrete too thick, the curing of upper portion/ bottom portion not uniform. Hence shrinkage cracks come about.

·        Removal of formworks too early. Materials, workmanship and supervisions not proper.

·        Sides of wall concreting were not done properly and due to that, water seeping out of RC walls and road way slabs. Poor water -proofing and concreting could be the cause of leakages from the walls.

 

Other observations:

 

·        Road way finishes- too rough and uneven.

·        Areas to be repaired to soffit and slab are marked blue in colour. Floor slabs in blue circles and soffit with blue marking letters / nos.

 

June 4, 2007 Kuala Lumpur

PKFZ: From RM 1.37 & RM2.98 psf jumped to RM 41.55 psf

The story on PKFZ is getting ‘hotter’ by the day thanks to the true spirit of investigative journalism of the Malaysiakini team. Please note that Pulau Lumut was the old name of Pulau Indah. And Pulau Lumu Development Cooperative Bhd was earlier referred as “Pulau Indah Malay Fishermen Cooperative”.We are still waiting patiently for Tun Ling Liong Sik, Datuk Seri Ting Chew Peh, Datuk Chan Kong Choy, Datuk Yaop Pian Hon, Datuk Chor Chee Heong, Datuk Tiong King Sing, Datuk Rahman Palil to enlighten Malaysian taxpayers on the issue of the questionable lRM1.81 billion land deal. PKFZ land sale under scrutiny

Fauwaz Abdul Aziz and Sabrina Chan Jun 14, 07 1:10pm Malaysiakini

Facts are now emerging that the parcel of land sold to the Port Klang Authority (PKA) for the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) for a hefty RM1.09 billion was originally bought for a much lower price.The land - sold by Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (KDSB) to PKA in November 2002 - was purchased from a local cooperative at only eight percent of the selling price. Pulau Lumut Development Cooperative Bhd (PLDCB) had sold half of the 405-hectare land on Pulau Indah to KDSB in the early 1990s for RM30 million, while the remaining half was sold after the 1997 financial crisis at RM65 million. Revealing this information today, PLDCB secretary Ruslan Akhyar said the 1,400-member cooperative established in 1989 received the land from the Selangor government only “a few years” before it was approached by KDSB with the offer to buy the land. This means the price of the land - originally farm land and mangrove swamps - went from RM1.37 per square foot (psf) when the first half was sold to RM2.98 psf when the remaining 202.5 hectares were bought over by KDSB. KDSB would have received the windfall when PKA agreed in 2002 to buy the whole lot to PKA at RM25 psf. Both Ruslan, who is also Rantau Panjang village chief, and Pulau Indah village chief Mohd Halil Selamat - who confirmed the figures - denied any knowledge pertaining to the transactions conducted subsequent to PLDCB’s disposal of the land. ‘This is business’ They also declined to comment on the tremendous difference between the prices at which the land was bought and sold by KDSB. “That’s what they call business,” said Halil when contacted. PLDCB chairperson Abdul Rahman Palil, who is a Selangor state exco member and Sementa state assembly person, declined to comment on the matter. According to an August 2005 Singapore Business Times report, KPA had paid KDSB a ten percent downpayment of RM108.5 million. The rest will be paid over 10 years beginning this year in instalments of between RM130 million and RM179 million. While the connection is murky, KDSB has been linked to property developer and investment firm Wijaya Baru Global Bhd’s (WBGB) and is described in WBGH’s 2006 annual report as an “associate company” from which it derived “contract revenue”.  In September last year, WBGB was actually slapped with a “public reprimand” by Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd for failing to make an announcement to the Exchange in relation to “the disposal of the Pulau Indah Land”. WBGB had failed to send a circular to its shareholders pertaining to the transaction and obtaining the approval of its shareholders prior to the transaction being completed, said Bursa Malaysia Securities in a statement. Bursa Securities said, however, that it has not found any of the WBGB directors to have caused or permitted the breach of the Bursa Securities Listing Requirements (LR) and only directed WBGH to “maintain appropriate standards of responsibility and accountability”. Unanswered questions DAP leader Ronnie Liu, who lodged a police report over PKA’s purchase of the land in 2004, said the information uncovered made it all the more pressing for the authority to investigate the matter. “It shows there are some questions to be answered,” he said when contacted. Beside selling the land on which PKFZ is situated, KDSB was also appointed to develop the zone into a regional export and transhipment hub for manufactured goods, modeled after the successful Jebel Ali Free Zone in Dubai. Six months after its completion and about RM2.4 billion worth of input later, however, PKFZ resembles a ghost town, with only about a dozen tenants scattered about the site instead of the anticipated crush of clients. Sticky situation for Chor? Poser over mega ‘ghost town’

PKFZ: Chor must resign from PKA

Not only they are sharing office here in the Westports PKFZ, they also share office in Wisma Wijaya in Petaling Jaya.Come on! The case of conflict of interest is very clear-cut. It’s not up to Tiong King Sing or Chor Chee Heong, or the management of Wijaya Baru or Wijaya Baru Global Bhd  or Kuala Dimensi to decide. Kuala Dimensi and Wijaya Baru are sharing the same site office in Port Klang Free Zone. These companies are clearly inter-related. It’s simply insufficient for Chor to merely opt out of meetings when the interests of Wijaya Baru/Kuala Dimensi with PKA / PKFZ were in tangle.Chor must relinquish either the chairmanship of PKA or the deputy chairmanship of Wijaya Baru Global Berhad. He must also sell all his shares in these companies (if he has any). The contracts and deals signed between PKA and Kuala Dimensi/ Wijaya Baru worth more than RM3 billion. This is certainly no small matter. Chor must not drag his feet. There’s no two ways about it.  Sticky situation for Chor?

Fauwaz Abdul Aziz & Sabrina Chan Jun 13, 07 10:11am Malaysiakini

The recent appointment of Port Klang Authority (PKA) chairperson Chor Chee Heung has come under scrutiny, given that he is also deputy chairperson of a company that has had indirect business dealings with PKA. Chor was appointed to the board of directors of property developer and investment firm Wijaya Baru Global Bhd’s (WBGB) on April 23, 2004.On April 19 this year, he took over the helm of PKA which has oversight of the ambitious albeit currently derelict Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ). It was WBGB’s associate company Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd that sold 405ha of land on Pulau Indah to PKA in November 2002 for the free zone project.Kuala Dimensi was also appointed to develop the PKFZ, touted as a regional export and transhipment hub for manufactured goods, similar to the successful Jebel Ali Free Zone in Dubai. DAP Selangor leader Ronnie Liu questioned why Chor is heading PKA. “As PKA chairperson, he may influence (the authority’s) future decisions in relation to WBGB. As such, he must relinquish one of the positions,” he said when contacted. DAP legal bureau chief Ngeh Koo Ham said the issue of potential conflict of interest is pertinent even though the land sale and development contract went through in 2002. “Even though these decisions were made before Chor’s time, it is not acceptable that a public authority such as PKA should be in such a position in relation to a private company - in this case Kuala Dimensi - that it had engaged,” said Ngeh. Chor was Transport Ministry parliamentary secretary from 1995-2000 and deputy minister in other portfolios until he stepped down from government in 2004. The following year, he lost his bid to become one of MCA’s four vice-presidents and dropped out of active politics.  ‘Different entities’ However, a corporate lawyer noted that the legal position on Chor’s dual posts depends on provisions of the statute governing PKA. Different public authorities have different things to say in such situations where its office-bearers are also at the helm of private companies, he said. It is allowed so long as Chor has declared his interests to both parties, he said, adding that space should be given to Chor to state his likely course of action in the event of a conflict between the interests of PKA and WBGB. “Legal issues aside, however, it remains relevant whether it is morally proper for PKA’s chairperson to be the deputy chair of a private company it has engaged,” he added. PKA’s legal advisor declined to comment on the issue, while general manager OC Phang - who is also PKFZ managing director - refused to any questions. Chor, however, said the issue of conflict of interest does not arise. “When there is a decision to be made by PKA that would affect the PKFZ, I would not participate. This is to be fair to PKA,” he said when contacted. Backing Chor was WBGB chief executive officer Tiong King Sing, who claimed there is no connection between his company and Kuala Dimensi. According to records in the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM), Kuala Dimensi is owned by an investment holding and management firm Wijaya Baru Holdings Sdn Bhd (WBHSB). At the same time, in WBGH’s 2006 annual report, Kuala Dimensi is listed as an “associate company” from which it derived “contract revenue”. CCM documents show Tiong to be a director and shareholder in both WBGB and WBHSB, but he maintained that “there is no connection” between these companies either. Adding to the confusion is the fact that WBGB, WBHSB, and Kuala Dimensi occupy the same premises at Wisma Wijaya in Petaling Jaya, Selangor. When contacted, the WBHSB company secretary said she holds the same post at WBGB, but she too said these “are two different entities”. Tiong further said Chor had asked the WBGB board if he should resign or turn down the PKA appointment. They had assured him there was no need to do either. “He did this so that there would be no misinterpretation by the public later. The board told him there is no conflict of interest,” he added.

Port Klang Free Zone: White elephant in the making

Boon Hock, Peter Tan and me in front of the godowns.Malaysiakini has started to report on the Port Klang Free Zone at the Westports in Pulau Indah today. MerdekaReview.com was the first Internet portal to report on the issue highlighted by me.This morning, I toured PKFZ for the second time together with several journalists and photographers from the Chinese press. I was accompanied by Peter Tan ( Selangor DAP vice chairman), Tee Boon Hock (Pandamaran DAP Treasurer and state committee member) and my assistant PH Chang, following my police report at the Klang police station last night.Let us hope that some, if not all, Chinese papers would report on the RM3.1 billion questionable land deal and contracts.I also hope that the PDRM would start its investigations despite of the list of implicated personalities looked like the “Who’s who in Malaysia”! BTW, the Commercial Crime Department has called me for an interview a while ago. Let’s see they would prove their worth.  Poser over mega ‘ghost town’

Fauwaz Abdul Aziz & Sabrina Chan Jun 12, 07 12:13pm Malaysiakini

Six months after its completion, the ambitious Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) resembles a ghost town, with only about a dozen tenants scattered about the site instead of the anticipated crush of clients. PKFZ - modeled after the highly successful Jebel Ali Free Zone in Dubai - was conceptualised as the region’s hub of choice for the export and transhipment of manufactured goods.In 2002, the Port Klang Authority (PKA) spent RM1.09 billion to acquire 405ha of land on Pulau Indah, and at least RM1.3 billion to build it up.Today, about RM2.4 billion worth of input later, it offers 512 standardised warehouse units, 260ha of open land, and four blocks of eight-storey office complexes.A check by malaysiakini found only one major company whose operations are visible from outside the perimeter.Norwegian oil and gas company Aker Kvaerner - the first to sign up when PKFZ began operations on Nov 1 last year.- only officially opened its sub-sea oil and gas centre last Thursday.While a spokesperson said the company is “very happy and very secure” with its choice of location, other industry players are staying out of PKFZ for various reasons.Bureaucratic nightmare Selangor Freight Forwarders & Logistics Association president Tan Ah Beng said PKFZ is an example of a mega-project into which a lot of money - but not enough thought - was put. For example, said Tan, there seems to be no overriding policy to streamline the myriad regulations from those of the customs department to the ministries of finance, health, agriculture, and international trade and industry. These have been imposed on companies seeking to store, manufacture, or assemble their products in PKFZ. “Without an over-arching policy and with the overlap of so many regulations, they’ve scared away companies which may otherwise have been interested. In this industry especially, time is money,” Tan said. He also said the dimensions of the warehouse units (each measuring 5,487 sq ft) are at odds with what many logistics companies want when storing cargo during transhipment. “They don’t seem to know what companies are looking for in warehouse units,” he said. “Even before they’ve ensured this project is up and running well, they’re looking at another huge project in the Iskandar Development Region (IDR) in Johor. What’s going to happen to this project? What’s going to happen to IDR in five years?” ‘Insufficient studies’ Echoing Tan, a senior manager of a multinational shipping corporation that does business with PKFZ said “there is too much red tape, too much bureaucracy, and too many procedures” for his company to consider relocating to the zone. “Businessmen don’t want to deal with those things,” he said, declining to be identified. A Klang-based freight forwarding player, whose company toured PKFZ last week, said the warehouse measurements are “all right”, but that there are simply not enough incentives to prompt a move to the site. “There’s ample space for a company like mine to either assemble or store our goods in these warehouse units. But for what is offered, the price is not competitive. It’s expensive compared to other facilities that offer the same or better,” said the logistics consultant. He too felt that PKA has over-extended itself on the PKFZ. “There doesn’t seem to have been enough consultation and market studies to ensure they have some clients in hand, at least, before embarking on such a huge project,” he said. DAP leader Ronnie Liu questioned why a public authority such as PKA - although it was privatised in 1986 - has risked so much of its financial strength by venturing into the billion-ringgit project when its mandate revolves around regulating Klang Port operators Westports and Northport. “It’s understandable for private businesses to do so, but what does PKA have to do with risking billions of ringgit on a project that is so full of risks?” asked Liu, who had in 2004 lodged a police report over the authority’s purchase of the land. When contacted, PKFZ managing director OC Phang, who is also PKA general manager, refused to entertain questions. 巴生港口自由區計劃 前主席：不知情  SINCHEW JIT POH 推薦給朋友    列印 updated:2007-06-12 20:16:38 MYT  （巴生訊）前巴生港務局主席拿督葉炳漢表示，有關巴生港口自由區的一切發展事項，都是在他任職前，由敦林良實所決定通過，因此詳情他確實一概不知。 他今日（週二，12日）受詢時指出，此項計劃是於2002年落實，並在2004年開始施工；可是他本身卻在2004年4月14日，才擔任港務局主席一職，況且現在他也已卸任。 因此，詢及有關巴生港口自由區的一切發展事項時，他不方便多做評論。 （星洲日報•2007.06.12） Besides Sinchew Daily, Oriental Daily, China Press and Nanyang also carried the news. Watch this blog for further details.

Police report on questionable RM1.81 b PKA/ Westports land deal

The Port Klang Free Zone Complex at Westport, Pulau Indah. Another ‘white elephant’ in the making?

Police report by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC Member and NGO Bureau Chief on the questionable RM1.81 billion PKA/Westports land deal and RM1.3 billion contract on Monday, 11 June 2007 at the PDRM Klang.

A. Buyer: Port Klang Authority (PKA)
B. Seller: Kuala Dimensi/ Pulau Indah Malay Fishermen Cooperatives
C. Players: Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik, Dauk Seri Dr Ting Chew Peh, Datuk Chan Kong Choy, Datuk Yap Pian Hon, Datuk Chor Chee Heong, Datuk Tiong King Sing, Datuk Rahman Palil, Datuk Azim Zabedi. Tan Sri Gnalingam.
D. Losers: Rakyat Malaysia

 The swampy land (saw the water?) that PKA paid RM1.81 billion for 1,000 acres (RM41.55 per square foot). The price is 200% higher than the market value, which was RM14 psf.

I was alerted by someone who has read my recent statement entitled “ Westports RM1 billion land deal: Why still no answer after police report made in December 2004?”, that the actual amount paid by Westports was not RM1 billion as reported earlier, but a whopping RM1.81 billion!

The figure was found in the 2005 AG Report according to a Business Times Singapore report dated 13 August 2005. To me, RM1 billion for 1,000 acres was unreasonably high, what more if the amount was RM1.81 bullion?

According to S Jayasankaran who filed the news report titled “AG highlights Port Klang’s financial dilemma”, MALAYSIA’S Port Klang Authority (PKA) cannot meet huge debt obligations of almost RM3 billion (S$1.32 billion) which will begin in 2007 without some serious government help, according to a report by the Auditor-General on the Authority’s financial statements for the year ended Dec 31, 2003.

According to the AG’s report, KPA agreed to purchase 1,000 acres of land near Westport from a private company for RM1.81 billion in November 2002. The plan, which has received federal government approval, was to create a national loading centre and a regional distribution hub along the lines of a similar distri-park in Dubai.

Earlier, it was reported that the deal valued the land at more than RM25 per square foot, which is more than 44% higher than the market value at that time (about RM14 psf). The AG described the price as something ‘calculated on a special-value basis’. What would the AG describe if the price was RM1.81 billion? Can anyone in the PKA or the Transport Ministry now tell us what exactly was “ calculated on a special-value basis”?

According to S Jayasankaran, the private company, which was unnamed in the AG’s report, is Kuala Dimensi, which is controlled by the family of Sarawak tycoon Tiong King Sing. Tiong is currently the Bintulu MP. Since 2002, it has been chaired by Azim Zabedi, who was named treasurer of the United Malays National Organisation (Umno) in 2004.

The AG’s report stated that KPA paid a 10 per cent down payment of RM108.5 million and agreed to pay the rest over 10 years beginning 2007 in installments of between RM130 million and RM179 million.

But that isn’t all. The report stated KPA signed another agreement with Kuala Dimensi to develop the land as a distribution hub for RM519 million in 2003.

Subsequently, the authority signed another supplementary agreement with Kuala Dimensi to develop the land but this time for RM1.3 billion. No explanation was given for the price increase according to the Business Times Singapore report. This is simply not proper and unacceptable. We want the police to investigate on these two questionable contracts between PKA and Kuala Dimensi.

 Aker Kvaerner, the only visible foreign company that operates from the Free Zone.

I have toured the Westports Free Zone last week and taken some pictures. The 512 units of godowns were completed for a long time but yet to start operation. The only visible foreign company that set its foot here is Aker Kvaerner from Norway. It appears to me that less than 100 acres of land were being utilized for the Free Zone, leaving much of the overpriced land vacant. The high-rise motorway linking the Westports and the Free Zone currently under construction is unnecessary and highly questionable.

 512 units of godown have been completed but yet to start operation. Why?

The report noted that a similar scheme of payment would be undertaken by KPA - namely, it would pay Kuala Dimensi a down payment of RM100 million, while the rest would be paid between 2007 and 2017 on a staggered basis. But the report stated that KPA did not have that kind of money.

I have made a police report on the scandalous PKA/ Westports RM1 billion land deal in December 2004, urging the police to instigate MCA leaders like Ling Liong Sik, Chan Kong Choy and Yap Pian Hon. Incidentally, Yap is now replaced by Chor Chee Heong in April this year. He was quoted by Merdekareview. Com that he has nothing to say about the questionable land deal.
More than two years have passed but nothing has come out of my police report. But now we were told that both the Westports and PKA were in deep financial problems. In fact, PKA is said to have incurred some RM3 billion in debts!

 Chor Chee Heong, the newly appointed PKA Chiarman also holds the position as a deputy chairman of Wijaya Global. This is clearly conflict of interest.

We also found out that Chor Chee Heong happens to sit on the board of Wijaya Global, a company linked to Wijaya Baru and Kuala Dimensi. This is a clear-cut case of conflict of interest!

Chor has to resign either as the Chairman of PKA or relinquish his post as the deputy chairman of Wijaya Global immediately.

/ Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO bureau chief

NOTE: I have just got back from the Klang police station. Chief Inspector Lawrence of the Commercial Crime Department was shocked to see the VIPs list implicated in my police report. Very frankly, he expressed his concern on whether his boss would allow him to do such an high-profile and sensitive (his word) case. He could only tell me who would be the IO after holding a discussion with his ASP boss. I was accompanied by Selangor DAP vice chairman Peter Tan and my special assistant P H Chang.

Tomorrow morning, we will be leading a group of jounalists and photographers from various newspapers to tour the Port Klang Free Zone.

Another white elephant in the making?

The blue colour stuctures are the godowns according to the jaga.

I have visited the Westports on Thursday morning together with Malaysiakini and MerdekaReview jounalists and DAP Pandanmaran treasure Tee Boon Hock and PJ Action Team leader Francis Chang. We have taken some photographs and will upload for bloggers to view the billion ringgit Westports Free Zone which was widely regarded as another ‘white elephant’ project by industry insiders.

Besides the Free Zone Office Complex, we have a glimpse of the 512 units of godowns (blue in colour) from the outside (we were barred from entering without a special pass) which were completed but not ready for operation.

I will also show bloggers the original look of the 1,000 acres of swamp land in the later updates. It’s ridiculous to pay more than RM25 psf for such land,what if the actual price paid was even higher, say RM44 psf? ( Earlier report said that PKA paid RM1 billion for the 1,000 acres of swampy land for the free zone project. But the AG report 2005 siad the price was RM1.81 billion).

I personally find that the high-rise motorway (currently under construction) connecting the Westports and the free zone is unnecessary and a sheer waste of money. It only allows someone to make more money.

The only prominent foreign investor who has set foot in Westports is Aker Kvaerner. 

Questionable Westports RM1 billion land deal - Part 2

Media statement by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew,DAP CEC member and NGO Bureau Chief on Friday, June 01, 2007 in Klang, Selangor

Questionable Westports RM1 billion land deal - Part 2

I was alerted by someone who has read my recent statement entitled “ Westports RM1 billion land deal: Why still no answer after police report made in December 2004?”, that the actual amount paid by Westports was not RM1 billion as reported earlier, but a whopping RM1.81 billion!

The figure was found in the 2005 AG Report according to a Business Times Singapore report dated 13 August 2005. To me, RM1 billion for 1,000 acres was unreasonably high, what more if the amount was RM1.81 bullion? 

According to S Jayasankaran who filed the news report titled “AG highlights Port Klang’s financial dilemma”, “ MALAYSIA’S Port Klang Authority (PKA) cannot meet huge debt obligations of almost RM3 billion (S$1.32 billion) which will begin in 2007 without some serious government help, according to a report by the Auditor-General on the Authority’s financial statements for the year ended Dec 31, 2003.

According to the AG’s report, KPA agreed to purchase 1,000 acres of land near
Westport from a private company for RM1.81 billion in November 2002. The plan, which has received federal government approval, was to create a national loading centre and a regional distribution hub along the lines of a similar distri-park in
Dubai.

Earlier, it was reported that the deal valued the land at more than RM25 per square foot, which is more than 44% higher than the market value at that time (about RM14 psf). The AG described the price as something ‘calculated on a special-value basis’. What would the AG describe if the price was RM1.81 billion? Can anyone in the PKA or the Transport Ministry now tell us what exactly was “calculated on a special-value basis”?

According to S Jayasankaran, the private company, which was unnamed in the AG’s report, is Kuala Dimensi, which is controlled by the family of
Sarawak tycoon Tiong King Sing. Tiong is currently the Bintulu MP). Since 2002, it has been chaired by Azim Zabedi, who was named treasurer of the United Malays National Organisation (Umno) in 2004.

The AG’s report stated that KPA paid a 10 per cent down payment of RM108.5 million and agreed to pay the rest over 10 years beginning 2007 in installments of between RM130 million and RM179 million.

 But that isn’t all. The report stated KPA signed another agreement with Kuala Dimensi to develop the land as a distribution hub for RM519 million in 2003.

Subsequently, the authority signed another supplementary agreement with Kuala Dimensi to develop the land but this time for RM1.3 billion. No explanation was given for the price increase according to the Business Times
Singapore report.

The report noted that a similar scheme of payment would be undertaken by KPA - namely, it would pay Kuala Dimensi a down payment of RM100 million, while the rest would be paid between 2007 and 2017 on a staggered basis. But the report stated that KPA did not have that kind of money.

Between 2001 and 2003, the authority’s net earnings ran between ‘a deficit of RM1.5 million and a surplus of RM16 million’.

In the absence of other sources of financing, it looks like the taxpayer will have to cough it up.

According to Merdekareview. com (a popular Chinese Internet news portal), Tan Sri Gnalingam claimed that Westports has no problem of serving the debt of RM1 billion. He said the debt could be settled by 2010. The question now is, why don’t Westports start paying up now if the company has the money?

I have made a police report on the scandalous Westports RM1 billion land deal in December 2004, urging the police to instigate MCA leaders like Ling Liong Sik, Chan Kong Choy, Yap Pian Hon and Umno leader Rahman Palil (Sementa State Assemblyman).

More than two years have passed but nothing has come out of my police report. But now we were told that both the Westports and PKA were in deep financial problems. In fact, PKA is said to have incurred some RM3 billion in debts!

Incidentally,
Yap has been replaced by Chor Chee Heong from April 16,2007. Would  Chor be any different from Yap Pian Hon? Your guess is as good as my guess.

I would make a second police report next week with the Klang police after touring the so-called Westports free zone.

 / Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew DAP CEC member and NGO bureau chief liu.ronnie2@gmail.comronnieliutiankhiew.wordpress.com

Westports questionable land deal: Chan Kong Choy must explain

Is buying land with public fund at a price more than double  the market value a crime? Transport Minister Chan Kong Choy must explain. Others who must also explain incl former Transport Minister Ling Liong Sik, the two former PKA chairman Ting Chew Beh and Yap Pian Hon and Umno Sementa state assemblyman Rahman Palil and Westports chairman Gnalingam. 以市价两倍价格购千亩土地 巴生西港负债十亿求助邻国
■日期／May 28, 2007   ■时间／08:10:43 pm ■新闻／家国风云   ■作者／merdekareview 陈慧思
【本刊陈慧思撰述】自2006年投入运作迄今，雪兰莪州巴生的马来西亚西港私人有限公司（Westports Malaysia Sdn. Bhd，简称“西港公司”）负债近马币十亿元。在该公司执行主席贾纳林甘忙于解释欠债原由之际，一笔高达马币18亿元的购地支出，仍有待西港、前交通部长林良实、港务局及反贪污局予以人民一个明确的交待。民主行动党非政府组织局主任刘天球（左图）曾在2004年就西港的一项土地交易向皇家警察的商业罪案调查组报案，质疑这宗交易是否牵涉贪污及失信问题。可是迄今，反贪污局仍没有任何交待及相应行动；当时的交通部长林良实也不曾回应此事。刘天球接受《独立新闻在线》电访时透露，当林良实于2003年退任之后，他查悉林任期内曾批准交通部属下的港务局（Part Klang Authority）以马币十亿元购买一幅一千亩的土地，发展巴生港口自由贸易区（Port Klang Free Zone）。当时，刘天球的报案书指出，上述土地交易数额高达马币十亿元，平均每英亩100万元，每平方公尺约马币25元，比市价高出44%。为此他质疑，此项交易是否牵涉贪污问题。刘天球指出：“我曾向地产界人士了解，他们认为，当时西港的土地市价约每平方公尺14元。换言之，港务局收购的价格比市价高出了44%！” 今日刘天球从新加坡《海峡时报》在2005年8月的报道惊然发现，该地售价不只马币十亿元，而是马币18亿1000万元；比当时的市价高出两倍！ 土地卖主是国阵领袖 国家稽查局对巴生港务局2003年底的表现所作的审查报告指出，港务局同意以马币18亿1000万元的价格向一家私人公司购入一片面积一千英亩的土地，以效仿杜拜（Dubai）港口，将之发展成为区域著名的货运及贸易中心。 刘天球从《海峡时报》的财经新闻获知，该占地一千亩的土地以马币18亿1000万元成交，比当时他从《太阳报》（The Sun）所获知的数额还要高出8亿元；为此，原拟就西港的债务问题报案的他说：“我更有理由报案了！” 《独立新闻在线》发现，若以一千英亩18亿1000万元计算，该地段的价格高达每平方公尺41元55分，比市价高出两倍！根据《海峡时报》报道，国家稽查局甚至形容该土地是“以特别价格计算”（calculated on a special-value basis）。 此外，《海峡时报》的报道指出，巴生港务局是从一家名叫“Kuala Dimensi”的公司手中购入该片土地。根据公司注册资料，Kuala Dimensi私人有限公司四名董事当中的两名董事都是国阵领袖，其一为国阵民进党民都鲁区国会议员张庆信，另一名则是自2004年出任巫统总财政阿都阿欣（Abdul Azim Mohd Zabidi）。 巴生港务局以高出市价两倍的价格购买上述地段，追究起来，当时的交通部长林良实（右图）和港务局主席陈祖排都有责任挺身说明真相。刘天球在2004年报案后，港务局主席职务由马华公会沙登区国会议员叶炳汉接任；叶炳汉今天对《独立新闻在线》表示，他对该事一无所知。不过，他透露，接替林良实出任交通部长的陈广才将就相关计划作出宣布。 无论如何，叶炳汉和陈广才过后并没有就这项具争议性的土地交易作任何回应。今日《独立新闻在线》联络上叶炳汉，他表示他刚于四月底卸任，无法回应此事。。 港务局、西港公司欠债累累 除了地价争议，刘天球指出，购地的决定也牵涉合法与否的问题。他表示，港务局是政府法定机构，按规定不能从事商业活动；交通部批准港务局购地开发商业区域，已违反既有规定。 此外，他指出，由于地理条件欠佳，巴生港口自由贸易区发展停滞，根本无从实现“杜拜港口”的美丽梦想；反之，西港公司和港务局欠债累累，最终或需要政府注资拯救。 交通部署下的巴生港务局是巴生北港和西港的管理机构，惟港务局已将位于美丽岛（Pulau Indah）的西港的操作和营运部份已经私营化。西港公司目前以特许经营者的身份负责西港的操作和营运。 根据《海峡时报》的报道，国家稽查局针对巴生港务局截至2003年底的表现所作的报告指出，“若无马来西亚政府的扶助，巴生港务局自2007年起便无法承担高达马币30亿元的庞大的债务”；目前欠债30亿元的港务局状况令人担忧。 西港或脱售给新加坡？ 此外，《马来西亚前锋报》（Utusan Malaysia）新闻网今年5月15日的一则报道揭露，西港公司欠下港务局十亿元的债务，相信正在寻求新加坡港务局（Port of Singapore Authority）的“协助”，以解决该公司的债务问题。 西港公司执行主席贾纳林甘（G. Gnanalingam，右图）最近与新加坡港务局执行主席Eddie Tan的会面，被视为西港或转手新港务局的先兆。 据《马来西亚前锋报》报道，新加坡港务局是世界上第二号港务机构，除了管理新加坡的港务，也管理25个国际港口的港务，被视为最有能力管理西港的外国机构。报道隐然透露，西港或因无法负荷庞大的债务，而脱手予这家优秀的港务机构。 无论如何，西港公司执行主席贾纳林甘矢口保证，西港公司不会变卖本身的利益；而西港公司的外国股权也已经达到了30%的限制，无法再脱售股权予外国公司。他也对外澄清，西港公司没有面对财务问题；作为本区域著名的港务管理单位，该公司预计可在2010年清还所有贷款。 他说：“还没有缴还给巴生港务局的余额不属于贷款，却是可以在30年被清还的租约（perjanjian penyewaan）。因此，西港没有面对财务问题。”他指出，在过去的五年中，该公司大部份的发展皆由内部基金及出租公司器材支撑。 根据公司注册资料，西港控股（Westports Holding）是西港公司的大股东；西港公司董事贾纳林甘通过Redzai建筑公司（Syarikat Pembinaan Redzai）掌握西港控股的50%股份、香港首富李嘉诚则透过Hutchinson港口码头（Hutchinson Ports Terminal）掌握30%股份、国库控股（Khazanah Holdings Bhd）则拥有10%股份。

Dinner: Reclaim PJ Parliamentary and State seats

Congratulations to the PJ Action Team for the successful dinner held in Sg Way (Seri Setia) a while ago.

Sec Gen Lim Guan Eng and deputy sec gen Chong Eng came all the way from Bukit Mertajam and Kota Melaka respectively to give the potential candidates in PJ their greatest support.

Other speakers tonight include Lau Weng San (PJ Action Team Chairman), Ean Yong Hian Wah (Selangor state chairman), Liew Ching Tong ( DAPSY leader), Thomas Goh ( PJ Action Team Treasurer), Tony Pua ( Economic Advisor to Sec Gen DAP), Rama ( Chairman of Kg Tun Razak ).

In my speech, I criticised the MCA local elected reps for not helping the residents and villagers. I also explained what has happened to my OSA case ( no fruther development) and the compensation I won from the case against the former IGP some six months ago was still not paid to me.

I did an opinion poll on the spot and to our delight, majority of the supporters said Yes to opposition cooperation; only 3 persons said No. I have no time to ask them why but I did use the opportunity to explain why we should get the opposition parties to work together.

In my speech, I explained why DAP leaders believe that the coming GE will fall in November this year ( NOV 25, to be more precise) or latest by March 2008. 

I also expressed my deep regret that the voters who lived in Jalan 4 and Jalan 18, Sg Way were fooled by Chew Mei Fun and Dr Wong Sai Hau in the 2004 GE. They were promised land titles immediately after the GE but guess what, their homes were all demolished by the authority in 2006. Both Chew and Wong did not even give it a fight. Not only that, they even failed to get the rightful compensation for many of them: No monthly rental subsidy of RM120 per family. No transport/ moving cost subsidy. No homes for second family…

But it’s too late for the residents who have trusted Chew and Wong. Chew has even gotten a promotion after the 2004 GE. There’s nothing the villagers can do except for voting against the two in the coming general elections.

Other speaker touched on issues such as mother tongue education, quality of tertiary education, freedom of religion, the importance of voters registration, rampant corruption and abuse of powers, increasing crime rates in PJ and Selangor, the restructuring of police force to fight crimes, the reasons for strengthening the DAP and other opposition parties, the NEP and income divide, the sexist Umno MPs ( we played the video clips of the relevant Parliamentary seating) and what should we expect  from a state assemblyman and Member of Parliament.

Everyone in the audience agrees with DAP speakers that Malaysia is not a better place to live after Abdullah has taken over from Dr Mahathir. We were all greatly disappoineted with the performance of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.