Project Report

Kg Baru redevelopment: The Paradox

2008-08-20T11:31:00.005+08:00

The redevelopment of Kampung Baru will proceed soon. DBKL is pushing ahead with the project and will spend RM236mil to upgrade the pedestrian walkways.

Thereafter, the development will encroach into the Malay heartland and the people within will be influenced to accept the change - destroy the old, and built a new cityscape; destroy the original, and replace it with a modern cityscape.

Former Titiwangsa MP Datuk Seri Suleiman Mohamed insists that Kampung Baru must move with the times to progress and modern development would help upgrade the lifestyle of the residents.

“Traditions and sentimentality are fine, but the residents must understand that for Kampung Baru to progress, the residents must embrace change,’’ he said.

Change is imminent; but will it be a change for the better or worse? This is the dilemma!

The Malays in Kampung Baru have to think carefully, think deeply and think broadly about this change which once it is agreed upon and contract is sign and works begin, then if any risk event takes place which are not foreseen at this stage the outcome may be insurmountable and fatal.

Ponder, Ponder, Ponder!
Risk, Risk, Risk.
Reward? Reward? Reward?

Development is surely good and once Kg Baru is redeveloped the land will fetch a high premium. The current price of land there may be valued around RM30-RM50 per sq ft. Once developed with a new city skyline the land price may shoot up to RM1,000 per sq ft. But, by then, the people of Kg Baru would not be the owner of the land anymore; it would probably be acquired by DBKL or the private developers and it is they (the new owners) who would reap all the benefits and reward of the new land price. The Kg Baru residents would probably have opted to trade-in their land in exchange for a condominium and some cash (sufficient for them to buy furnitures and renovate their new home). They could only stand and stares at the land and say to their grandchildren: "Dulu tanah ini hak Tok. Sekarang sudah tak da." The grandchildren would then asked: "Kenapa Tok jual tanah yang molek ini? Sekarang kami tak sanggup beli balik hak ini lagi."

Once development gets underway, the bungalows and shophouses would be demolished and highrise buildings and skyscrapers will be the new skyline.

The cost of redevelopment and the cost of procurement of the rights to the redevelopment would be more than RM1 billion. Who could afford to pay such sum? The big time guys! Who are they? The Chinese and the foreigners!

With such massive investments, the developers must get sufficient buyers for those properties. The price of the properties will not come cheap; each apartment or each condominium units, each office lot or retail space will cost RM700,000 and above; it could even be as high as RM2mil for each strata title. Who could afford to buy them? The residents would have opt out of the land or would have acquired a condominium unit in exchange for the land. But the residents are a small population as compared to the vast development. The development needs a lot of buyers; anyone who can afford to invest and buy them; anyone.

As such, people from outside will have to be lured to buy the properties. Investors, speculators, foreigners and non-Malays would be lured to own a property there.

What would then become of Kampung Baru, the Malay heartland? So, what then happens to a Malay heartland?

It will no more be Kampung Melayu. It would most likely become "Bandar Cina dan Mat Salleh", because it has being turned into a metropolitan city.

By then, it would be too late and the Malays will have to cry "Kami Hilang Ketuanan" and cry "Kami di serang oleh pendatang"; they have then lost the last bastion of control in the city.

It must be noted that, for without the investors and buyers, the redevelopment will fail. Look at South Johor Economic Region/ Iskandariah Development Zone (Gelang Patah) - without the Singaporeans the development is a standstill; but with Singaporeans, the Johor Malays will cry "invasion". Mahathir had warned about the risk of "invasion".

So, the people of Kampung Baru is in a paradoxical position - develop or remain?

My opinion? Remain; developed and Kampung Baru becomes Bandar Cina campur Orang Putih.

But if the Malays can accept the change, and are able, capable and competent to deal with globalization and liberalization and capitalism, then redevelopment is acceptable and good. Please remember: Don't blame the Chinese; the mooters of the redevelopment are the Malays themselves. You take your own risk and blame only yourself. I am of the opinion that Kampung Baru should remain as the Malay heartland. But that is only one man's viewpoint and carries no weight.

*********************************************************

Read more about it below:

Star Metro: RM236mil to upgrade Kampung Baru

Star Metro: DBKL prefers landowners to develop area on their own

Residents worried development will spell death for heritage

***********************************************************

Star Metro: RM236mil to upgrade Kampung Baru

THE Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) will spend a whopping RM236.5mil to upgrade the infrastructure in Kampung Baru.

The federal government is contributing RM100mil from the allocation under the 9th Malaysia Plan.

One of the projects involves building a series of pedestrian walkways to improve connectivity and accessibility within the city.

The DBKL said a tender would be called soon to build the walkways connecting Dataran Merdeka to Chow Kit and Kampung Baru at a cost of RM31mil.

According to DBKL land development unit director Mohd Sahak Surip, the pedestrian project will be carried out in phases.

THE Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) prefers to let the Kampung Baru residents develop their own land while it plays the role of administrator.

According to DBKL master plan department director Zainab Mohd Ghazali, under the Draft Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020, there are four options for the Kampung Baru landowners on the development of their area.

The first option allows the landowners who want to develop their land on their own to go ahead and do so.

The second option is a joint development project among the landowners to develop their land and to share the development cost.

The third option involves the Kampung Baru Development Corporation teaming up with developers to develop the land. In this instance, the DBKL will act as the mediator.

The fourth option involves the DBKL acquiring land in Kampung Baru for development under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

ALTHOUGH the federal government has announced the setting up of a Kampung Baru Development Corporation with an initial funding of RM100mil to develop one of Kuala Lumpur’s oldest villages, most of Kampung Baru residents do not seem to be excited.

Obviously, they do not want outsiders to be involved in the development of their precious heritage and want the right to determine the future development of the area.

Since the Draft Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020 was unveiled nearly three months ago, most of the Kampung Baru landowners have been having sleepless nights, worrying that their lands may be acquired by force under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

As the Aug 31 objection period deadline for the draft plan draws near, many landowners are concerned and worried that the plan may be confirmed without due consideration of their rights, interests and welfare.

Most of the residents welcome development but are not very sure what the draft plan is all about, especially the matters concerning the mechanism for developing the land.

“It is so confusing. I’m afraid to lose my house. It’s all I have. I want to stay here forever,’’ 69-year-old Aishah Mohd Tawil said with a sob.

The poor woman has apparently been impressed by the pictures of mega projects printed in the draft plan but wondered just where her little kampung house was going to fit in all those beautiful but daunting pictures.

“Can you blame us for seeking help from our wakil rakyat (MP) because the DBKL (Kuala Lumpur City Hall) did not want to listen to us or come here to see us,’’ 62-year-old Zakaria Yahaya said.

“I don’t care what party the MP (Titiwangsa MP Dr Lo’ Lo’ Mohamad Ghazali of PAS) represents, but she is the only one who can present our views in parliament,’’ the Kampung Baru native said.

Resident Hashidah Abdul Razak said she would never trust anyone again when it concerned development affecting her home.

Hashidah, 50. said both her father Abdul Razak Syed and grandfather Mohd Sayed were cheated in the 1980s when a developer friend forged the S&P documents to swindle them of their land in Kampung Baru.

Hashidah has not recovered from the pain and anguish brought upon by endless court battles and an out- of-court settlement that was only half of what the property was worth.

“It makes no difference to me who develops Kampung Baru but I will not be cheated again,’’ she said.

“We want to make sure that outsiders are not involved in the development of Kampung Baru,’’ Hashidah said.

However, former Titiwangsa MP Datuk Seri Suleiman Moahamed insists that Kampung Baru must move with the times to progress and modern development would help upgrade the lifestyle of the residents.

“Traditions and sentimentality are fine, but the residents must understand that for Kampung Baru to progress, the residents must embrace change,’’ he said.

$220 million BDC Project

2007-05-11T18:44:00.000+08:00

The RM220 million BDC interchange project, which encompasses the Kuching International Airport-Stutong Link Road was finally completed in a record 8 months, one year ahead of schedule.

Who could have done that? Which company has such ability?

It is none other than ... Ting Pek Khiing, the superman of construction and the company is Global Upline Sdn Bhd of which Ting could only be named as the advisor.

"Many people are doubtful we can make it. Today we prove we can do it," Ting said.

According to Ting, the design and workmanship of the interchange was among the best in Malaysia.

I am not able to comment if this is the best in Malaysia regarding workmanship and design, but one thing is for certain - only Ting Pek Khiing can do such a massive project in 8 months for a project that has 18 months contract period and of which is worth some RM220 million. No other contractor could... bearing in mind that the duration is calculated from the date in the award letter, not the date of physical commencement.

Syabas to Tan Sri Datuk Ting Pek Khiing and Global Upline. Sarawak Boleh!

Designed to Fail!

2007-02-05T11:58:00.000+08:00

Costly blunders? Blundering the nation's coffers?

Some shocking facts about contractors who were awarded government projects:

They lack expertise. Incompetent.
Too ready to make a quick buck.

Projects in the spotlight recently:

Middle Ring Road 2: Cost - RM120m (it actually cost RM238.8mil); an extra RM70m to pay for repair work paid by the govt even though it was contractor's fault.
Navy Recruit Training Centre (Pularek): Cost - RM198m; extra RM13m needed, 7,032 defects and paid by govt even though it was contractor's fault.
Matrade Building: Cost - RM287m; the cost kept rising until it reached that amount. Original contract value is RM167m. The extra RM120 mil is paid by govt.

It may sound astonishing; even ridiculous. But it is true.

Reasons for these blunders was revealed by Second Finance Minister:

(1) Projects were awarded to contractors who do not have the expertise whatsoever.

(2) Projects given to those who do not have the financial means to complete the projects.

(3) Bumi contractors sold the project for quick bucks.

(4) Consultants' grossly incompetent.

(5) The actual builder is ultimately the sub-sub-sub-sub-sui contractor. (A $200m award to the maincon becomes $80mil when it was passed down to the ultimate builder.)

Incompetent contractors, delays, cost overruns, failed projects: Lessons learnt?

The government has put in place mechanisms to avoid delays in project completion and ensure cost effectiveness. Referring to the New Sunday Times report yesterday on cost overruns in projects due to the incompetence of contractors and consultants, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohd Effendi Norwawi said the mechanisms
would ensure only competent contractors were given government jobs.

He said the government had drawn valuable lessons from case studies of failed projects, as well as the successful ones.

“We have put in place new initiatives to streamline our procurement processes and to ensure projects are delivered efficiently and cost effectively.”

These, he said, included:
• Ensuring projects are awarded to competent contractors; and,
• Installing systems to monitor projects on near real-time basis to spot any delivery problems early and resolve problems immediately.

MRR2 Repair: RM70 mil

2007-02-01T23:41:00.000+08:00

Repairs to MRR2 flyover cost RM70m

Compiled by ROYCE CHEAH, BEH YUEN HUI AND A. RAMAN
1st February 2007, The Star

THE Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has revealed that repairs to the MRR2 flyover in Kepong cost more than RM70mil, Utusan Malaysia reported.

PAC chairman Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad said the figure was high compared with its construction cost – RM120mil.

He was quoted as saying that this reflected “shoddy design and construction concepts” that were approved by the Government when projects were given to contractors.

“There is no point in spending more and not being able to use it,” he said, adding that it was difficult to pinpoint who was responsible for the mistakes in such a project.

“As an example, the MRR2 project has the contractor and concessionaire constantly pointing fingers at each other. The problems were with the design and construction.”

Shocking? It was originally estimated to be RM20 million.

More shocks? The government is paying the bills. The MRR2 is a Design-Built-Turnkey contract and the contractor has to give an absolute guarantee to the government for the design and construction.

Much more shocks? Wait!!!!

Report Unsatisfactory Contract Works

2006-10-02T22:04:00.000+08:00

Schools urged to report unsatisfactory contract jobs

School authorities have been urged to report discrepancies in contract jobs without fear.

Deputy Education Minister Datuk Hon Choon Kim said shoddy work and over-valued jobs should be reported so that appropriate action could be taken against those responsible.

“After the over-valued contract job in a school in Johor came to the limelight, I had called on the schools to give feedback.

“I even had my fax number flashed in the media. But we did not receive a single call from schools."

“So, I took the initiative to ask my officers to call 114 schools to find out if they are happy with the repair jobs at the schools. "

“Most said they are satisfied, some said they have no comment, and a handful of them said they are not satisfied. "

“I forwarded the dissatisfied cases to the Works Ministry for follow up action,” he said.

He added the Works Ministry was in charge of monitoring repair works in schools and awarding contracts.

Hon said this after visiting SJK (C) Keat Hwa K and SJK (C) Keat Hwa S here on Monday.

He said the Keat Hwa K school board members had requested for the school to be relocated elsewhere.

A teacher fell to his death last year when the wooden flooring on the second floor that was heavily infested with termites gave way.

Hon said the the school board should find suitable piece of land and initiate fund-raising drives to finance building works.

“The government will only help to top up the fund, if needed,” he said.

Hon also said the government had doubled the allocation for partially aided schools from RM50mil during the Eighth Malaysia Plan to RM100mil in the Ninth Malaysia Plan.

“This year alone, 152 partially aided Chinese schools were given a total of RM8.257 mil,” he said, adding that last year the Chinese schools only received about RM4mil.

He said 114 Chinese primary schools received an additional allocation of RM4.7 mil last year to repair damages caused by termites.

Pay as Contracted

2006-10-02T21:51:00.000+08:00

PM wants government to make prompt payment for services and goods

Monday October 2, 2006

The Star Online

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi wants Ministries, departments and agencies to make payment for services and goods provided to them without delay.

The Prime Minister has also ordered the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) and the Implementation and Co-ordination Unit (ICU) to issue reminders to the ministries and departments to make the payment as soon as possible.

“I want payments for goods and services provided to the Government be paid expeditiously. Do not wait any longer.

"If the goods had already been supplied and services has been provided to us, then there is no reason to delay payment.

“A contract is a form of promise and if the other party has carried out their part of the deal, then we should carry out ours, which is to pay them for their services,” he told staff of the Prime Minister’s Department at its monthly gathering here on Monday.

The Prime Minister said in Islam, it was important that responsibility be carried out and promises be kept, adding that fulfilling one’s part of the contract was viewed seriously by the religion.

He said delay in payments would not benefit the Government which did not want unpaid bills to pile up, making payment a problem.

“If we do not pay, a lot of people will suffer.

"Workers will not get paid, banks will not be paid for the loans issued and suppliers could not supply construction materials because of they get paid late.

“This will cause anger and dissatisfaction against the Government.

"Therefore, I want to remind ministries, department and agencies to expedite payments and I want the central agencies to remind them on this,” he said.

Cakap boleh serupa bikin kah?

MRR2 Re-Open to Light Traffic

2006-08-02T19:13:00.000+08:00

MRR2 reopens to light traffic

Light vehicles can now use the Kepong stretch of the Middle Ring Road II (MRR2), closed in March for repairs to structural defects.

Two lanes opened on both sides at 2pm yesterday but the third – the fast lane – would remain close for structural reinforcement works.

Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu, who visited the site yesterday, said these lanes, however, would be closed every weekend from 10pm on Saturday to 6am on Sunday.

He said the Public Works Department was also repairing a stretch on the MRR2 between the bus stop near the Manjalara junction and the access road to the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia near Taman Indah Perdana.

Samy Vellu said repair works on the MRR2 was 70% complete and “progressing smoothly without any delay.”

“Preliminary pier crosshead reinforcement work on all the pillars has been completed. This is to allow light vehicles (below 2.1m in height) to ply the MRR2,” he said.

“Further structural reinforcement work is being done on all pier crossheads and is expected to be completed by the end of November.”

Samy Vellu assured motorists that the MRR2 was now safe and “above the international standard safety benchmark.”

On the RM52.85mil interchange linking the new Sungai Buloh Hospital to the North-South Expressway, he said he expected it to be opened to traffic from Aug 14.

Samy Vellu also said repairs to the Sierra Mas bridge in Sungai Buloh, damaged by floods recently, were set to be completed by the end of this month, and the bridge would be opened on Sept 1.

He also said the Government has approved RM110mil for the repair and upgrading of more than 300 bridges nationwide.

“Some bridges need major repairs while some minor ones.”

NST Report: MRR2 reopens and it's 'safer than ever'

Samy Vellu said the cost of repairs was still being calculated although earlier estimates had pegged it at RM40 million. Contractor Bumihighway, which built the initial stretch, is paying for the repairs.

Structural reinforcement is being done on all pier crossheads and is expected to be completed by the end of November.

The MRR2 was closed for the first time for three months from Aug 8, 2004, and reopened in November last year.

The decision to close the stretch for a second time came after cracks were discovered and a study by independent consultant, Halcrow Group Limited of Britain, found cracks on 31 of the 33 pillars of the flyover.

The company said a design flaw and improper anchorage of the crossbeams on the concrete columns were to blame.

Repairs to the 1.7km stretch included water-proofing and installing metal braces as recommended by Halcrow.

Fortuna Court Condo Fear of Soil Erosion

2006-06-24T22:10:00.000+08:00

Residents living in Fortuna Court Condominium at Jalan Awan Cina, Taman OUG, Kuala Lumpur, are worried about soil erosion behind their houses.

This is because a development project is being carried out and the slopes have been left exposed since work started.

The condo management company YBR had written several letters to the developer and City Hall highlighting their fears and so far they did not get any response.

YBR Management then decided to engage Zaidun-Leeng engineering consultant to assess the situation.

The engineers observed that the neighbouring development did not have proper drainage system and this had resulted in surface water flowing to the adjacent land which had cause the soil erosion and affected the stability of the slopes. The engineers recommended that monitoring system should be set up and that an effective drainage system was needed to avoid seepage.

Jalan Reko Bridge Kajang crack

2006-06-19T21:52:00.000+08:00

Jalan Reko bridge in Kajang was closed after a large crack in the structure appeared which is believed to be caused by soil erosion. The crack ran almost through the whole length of the bridge.

Taman Desa Jaya soil erosion

2006-06-19T21:45:00.000+08:00

Taman Desa Jaya, Selayang

Four tombs had been damaged by soil erosion washed down by a slope. No retaining wall had been constructed on the slope. The developer said they owned the tomb site but the residents argued that the cemetery had been there for 40 years.

Bukit Kepong Erosion

2006-06-19T21:41:00.000+08:00

NKVE-Setia Alam Link Open to traffic

2006-06-19T21:31:00.000+08:00

June 2006, NKVE-Setia Alam Link was opened to traffic.

July 2005: Box girder collapse.

Nine Bangladeshi construction workers were injured when eight girders of a flyover of the NKVE-Jalan Meru Link near Bukit Raja collapsed. The girders, forming a 10m stretch, collapsed at 1.40pm onto the NKVE (New Klang Valley Expressway) below, bringing down 17 workers who were working on it.

“We were dragging a reinforcing cable (which hold together the girders) across the flyover with 15 other workers when I heard a loud cracking sound. The section suddenly collapsed. I managed to break my fall by jumping off the falling panel just before it crashed onto the road. Shafiqul could not escape as he was trapped by the cable he was holding,” Nurzzaman said.

The 28-year-old Shafiqul, who suffered head injuries and a broken leg, is being treated at the Intensive Care Unit of the Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Hospital in Klang. The others who were also warded were Musharaf (head injuries), K. Razu Ahmad Amzad, 39, (head injuries), Alam Agir, 40, (left leg broken), Abu Bakar, 30, (head injuries), Jahangir Alam, 30, (head), Bagt, 28 (left leg broken) and Md. Abd Malak, 38 (head injuries).

The construction of the NKVE-Jalan Meru interchange started in May last year and was due to be completed at the end of this year. The RM150mil, 7.5km link connects the NKVE to Jalan Meru in Klang.

DRM-HICOM wins $425 million without Arbitration

2006-05-30T11:06:00.000+08:00

All the time, whenever there is a claim which the government disputed, the superintendent officer and the project team representing the government, stood on hard ground.

The government represented by the superintendent officer were prepared to go to court or arbitration to remedy.

But each time, when it was to be up for hearing, the government, advised by the attorney general office, would back off and sought out of court settlement; they call it compromise. In reality, they knew they would lose, because they didn't have enough supporting documents and evidence to back up their contention; impliedly, it was an admission of wrong and admission of a breach of contract.

It's no different this time.

DRB claimed variation order works for a balooned up sum of $900 million. They got $425 million bonus; courtesy of the government.

At first the S.O. stood firm to deny the claims as frivolous and vexatious. When the time to be present at the court of arbitration, they back out and sought refuge behind a compromised solution.

Why were they prepared to pay now, and such a hefty sum?

Is it the Syed Mokhtar factor?

DRB-HICOM is now in further talks with the Government on liquidated ascertained damages and the release of performance bond. It said is hopeful and positive that this matter will also be resolved soon.

DRB-HICOM Bhd, announced yesterday that the Government has finally agreed to pay RM425 million for additional works done on the Rawang-Ipoh electrified double-tracking rail project. The settlement is for the payment of variation order and loss and expense claims for the extra works, it told Bursa Malaysia Bhd yesterday.

The Rawang-Ipoh track forms part of the national railway firm Keretapi Tanah Melayu Bhd's RM14 billion project to lay parallel lines from Padang Besar to Johor Baru. DRB-HICOM, which is now controlled by tycoon Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary, began work on the RM2.6 billion rail project in mid-2000 and was at first given until the end of 2002 to complete the stretch. The deadline was later extended to December 2004. The group was reported to have completed about 88 per cent of the 179km stretch. In June, the Government terminated the contract with DRB and appointed UEM Builders Bhd, one of the sub-contractors of the project, to complete the unfinished portion of the project.

Analysing Matrade Fiasco

2006-05-29T10:29:00.000+08:00

Samy Vellu finally relented; he confirmed that the government can't sue the directors of PISB as it is now insolvent.

To this, Brendan Periera had to say: Welcome to the world of Perangsang International Sdn Bhd (PISB), the contractors who clinched the deal to build the Matrade building.

Brendan recalls the History of the Fiasco

In 1993, the PWD called for a limited tender to build the Matrade building and estimated that it would cost RM175 million and take 125 weeks to complete.

After studying the 14 bids, PWD recommended that Ireka Construction be given the job. The company promised to complete the job in 138 weeks for RM157 million. The recommendation was forwarded to the Finance Ministry and was promptly dumped.

The ministry wanted the 14 companies to re-submit their bids. But two days after it issued that directive, the Finance Ministry surprisingly ordered PWD to negotiate directly with PISB.

Why this company was given the contract still stumps the people at PWD.

From the start, there were problems. PISB obtained the development order late and it needed three extensions, delaying the completion by 686 days. When it completed 98 per cent of the project in 1999, the PWD discovered cracks in the structure and ordered PISB to carry out repairs. The contractor refused, saying that it had carried out the project according to specifications.

PWD and the Finance Ministry — now under a new minister — obtained the services of Arup Consultants. Even after the consultants concurred with PWD’s findings on the structure of the Matrade building, PISB refused to carry out remedial work.

At this point, you have to sit back, digest what has happened and ask some elementary questions.

Question number 1: Why wasn’t PISB or its directors sued in 1999 for not doing their job competently? Why wait until now to visit the possibility of taking action?

Question number 2: Were the terms of the contract so generous that the contractor could walk away without agreeing to do remedial work?

Brendan posed this question to ask: Can the money be recovered?

According to Brendan: There is a better chance of Malaysia qualifying for the 2010 World Cup than PISB paying any compensation.

And here is why: PISB was sold off to Tajuk Modal on July 19, 2004, for RM2. PISB was renamed Tajuk Construction Sdn Bhd and the latter was wound up on Jan 18 this year. In short, PISB doesn’t exist anymore. In any case, it would have been tough to go after the directors of PISB. The contract was signed with the company and unless the directors gave any personal guarantees, they would not be liable in a personal capacity.

Some options appear available to the authorities.

One: Lodge a police report, find out if the decision by the Finance Ministry was above board and pursue any wrongdoing — no matter where it leads.

Two: Urge the Selangor Government to make good the RM95 million owed to the Federal Government. After all, before it tanked, PISB was a subsidiary of the State’s investment arm. Surely, the people at Shah Alam have a moral obligation to right this obvious wrong.

Would the government learn a lesson or two from this fiasco?

Or, will history repeat itself, ...sooner rather than later?

Matrade Finally Complete?

2006-05-24T15:46:00.000+08:00

After 9 years, and after overspending more than $120 million over and above the original budget, the project was finally completed.

A handover ceremony was held in the building in the presence of International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz and Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu.

Rotol-AMS-Bumi Technologies Sdn Bhd, the contractor appointed to carry out the balance works had completed 39 days ahead of schedule. The appointment of new contractors to rectify the defects saw costs balloon from an initial RM167 million to RM287.51 million, with about RM64.8 million spent on repairs.

The building was finally completed by RotolAMSBumi Technologies Sdn Bhd and Syarikat Pembinaan Anggerik Sdn Bhd together with NSC Mekanikal Fastcoll Corporation Sdn Bhd.

Believe it? The repair works costs $64 million and the outstanding works cost $56 million? The contractor must have made a fortune! Anyway, it was better than the previous contractor who had wallop $200 million and abandoned the project. The hardest to swallow is that the previous contractor, Perangsang International Sdn Bhd (PISB), is owned by the Selangor Govt.

PISB was a subsidiary company of Kumpulan Hartanah Selangor Bhd (KHSB), an investment company of the Selangor government.

The Works Ministry plans to bring former board members of Perangsang International Sdn Bhd (PISB) to court for the nine-year delay in completing the Matrade building.

Samy Vellu said he had personally investigated the company and its directors and all evidence gathered would be produced in the event of a court hearing.

Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu said although the company was now defunct, the ministry would not remain silent. “Although the company no longer exists, we will go to the court and take action against the directors,” Samy Vellu said. “They cannot just run away and not take responsibility,” he said, adding that construction costs went up by 70% due to the delay.

Work on the building in Jalan Duta began in 1994 and was targeted for completion in 1997. Due to several delays and the appointment of a new contractor, the original cost of RM167mil ballooned to RM287.5mil, with RM64.8mil spent on repairs.

The original contract to PISB was terminated last March and the company ordered to pay late delivery charges of RM41,750 a day for 2,276 days.

In 2004, the shares of PISB were sold to Tajuk Modal Sdn Bhd. In July, K. Hartanah announced that the group was selling Perangsang to a company called Tajuk Modal Sdn Bhd for RM2. Perangsang had net liabilities of RM7.6mil at the end of last year.

The directors of Tajuk Modal are Chong Sang and Yap Fook Sang.

K. Hartanah said it was selling Perangsang as it was in line with the group's scheme of reconstruction, which is to divest non-core businesses, and to streamline, regroup and concentrate on its property development activities.

International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz expressed regret that her ministry had to bear heavy losses as a result of the delay.

"Matrade, apart from having to rent elsewhere, also lost out in terms of opportunity cost. Total rental earnings forgone from the building’s exhibition space was an estimated RM120mil, the equivalent of building another 24-storey building," she added.

As a client, Rafidah said, she was disappointed and wanted the Works Ministry to not only take action against the former PISB directors but also look into the probability of any irregularities during the tender process. While waiting for its new building, Matrade rented premises at Wisma Sime Darby and also a small exhibition hall at Wisma PKNS in Jalan Raja Laut, Kuala Lumpur.

Matrade staff members are expected to move into the new office beginning in July.

Read the earlier article: Matrade RM167 Million Damages

Police HQ Project in Tronoh

2006-05-20T11:28:00.000+08:00

It took 18 months to build the $19.183 million Bandar Baru Seri Iskandar Police HQ project in Tronoh, Perak, to this state and it looks completed.

But this project was abandoned in July 2002.

Arcadia Architect's partner, Zulkiflie Amir Samad told Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi that the 11ha project needed a major make-over after vandalism and the ravages of nature caused extensive damages.

It now needs another 15 months to be made fit for occupation after being left dormant (abandoned) since July 2002.

The project architect is Arcadia Architect & Associate.

KLT Dedicated Highway(1)

2006-03-18T10:00:00.000+08:00

Civil Engineering Design Consultant, Maunsell Sharma & Zakaria, the consulting firm for the design of Ampang-KL Elevated Highway (KLT) has sued Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd for RM50mil for libel.

Maunsell Sharma & Zakaria Sdn Bhd, filed the suit at the Civil Division High Court registry at Wisma Denmark in Jalan Ampang here yesterday through their lawyer D.P. Vijandran.

In the suit, the firm claimed that the Utusan Malaysia daily had published defamatory words in two page-one articles on Feb 9 and 10.

It said the articles alleged that there were many cracks in the highway and that these were caused by flaws in the engineering design of the highway.

Apart from damages, the company is seeking an injunction, an apology, interest and costs.

Maunsell Sharma & Zakaria is also the design consultant for Middle-ring Road Two (MRR2).

Yesterday, Works Minister Samy Vellu admitted in Parliament that defective design was one of the reasons for the cracks in the Middle Ring Road 2 (MRR2).

"The steel placement did not follow specifications," Samy said in reply to a question from Speaker Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib.

Ramli had interrupted Samy Vellu when the minister was giving a technical explanation for the cracks on the MRR2 highway in reply to questions from Datuk Ismail Sabri Yaakob (BN-Bera) and other MPs.

Samy Vellu said his ministry monitored bridges and flyovers but only the MRR2 was found to have "serious defects".

MRR2- Samy said Govt will pay for repair

2006-03-03T22:31:00.000+08:00

Samy Vellu said the repairs to the cracks on the Kepong flyover of the Middle Ring Road Two (MRR2) are expected to be completed on June 30.

He said the German consultant firm, Leonhardt Andra and Partners, would complete the repairs in four months.

Samy Vellu said the repairs involved "structural strengthening". "It involved fabrication of the tie frames, better known as steel frames, in Kapar beginning March 1." Samy Vellu said the steel frames would temporarily replace all the crossheads at the flyover during the repair work. "The installation of the steel frames will begin at pillar No. 31 on March 15." Samy Vellu said the Public Works Department (JKR) had submitted the plans to the contractor for work to begin on Feb 27. "Crack mapping is being undertaken in 35 locations, that is 31 piers and two abutments," he said, adding that the procedure had been completed on 14 piers and one abutment.

Samy Vellu said crack mapping would be completed on March 12. Asked whether the flyover would be opened to traffic after June 30, he said the JKR would conduct an investigation and monitoring to determine whether it would be safe for use.

The minister had said earlier that the government would foot the RM40 million cost of repairs and claim the cost from the contractors of the flyover.

The repair was largely due to design problem. The project is a Turnkey-Design & Built Contract costing $238.8 million. Contractually, the contractor is fully responsible for the defects and at such shall be held liable for the damages incurred.

Sukmim, Bumi Hiway and KKM (Wilayah)was the main contractor.

How is it that the government would pay for the repairs? Is the minister nuts?

Matrade RM167 Million Damages

2006-02-27T03:39:00.000+08:00

"Even if it has been reduced to a one-sen company, we will go after them. We will go after the parent body and even its subsidiaries. They cannot just run away by reducing the paid-up Capital."

"We will show them what we can do."

- Samy Vellu

Samy Vellu said the government will go all out to pinned-down Perangsang International Sdn Bhd, a subsidiary company of Selangor government Incorporated, and the turnkey contractor for the Matrade Building.

Samy wants to make Perangsang pay RM167 million compensatory damages comprising $97.02 million for non-performance and $72.9 million for remedial works.

Boleh ka? How?

It's a $2 paid-up company! Didn't Samy understand what is $2?

They never reduced their paid-up capital, Samy! It was and had been a $2 company since the day the government decided to award Perangsang International the project.

How is it that the government could award a $167 million contract to a $2 company? Samy should answer!

The legal advisors in PWD should perform their duties by advising their boss about contract law and damage claims.

MRR2 - Cabinet Decides

2006-02-22T20:33:00.000+08:00

New twist of events! The Board of Engineers (BEM) on instruction from the Prime Minister Pak Lah had arbitrated on the MRR2 issues and had made the final recommendations to the cabinet.

The events that lead to the Prime Minister's call to BEM to arbitrate arises because of internal disagreement between the boss - Works Minister, Samy Vellu, and his department, JKR on the structural repair reports. Samy wants to follow Halcrow's recommendation for rectification which was purportedly a face-saving (for himself) and will cost less for the contractor Bumi Hiway. Public Works Department (PWD) are convinced that the contract terms stipulate that the Turnkey Contractor is fully responsible and liable to make good the Work in full complaince of the terms of conditions of contract pertaining to design quality specified. PWD thus wants to Contractor to fulfil its obligations and ensure that the flyover meets the qualified quality specified. (read more here)

Based on the contractor's view, the repair works is basically patching and grouting the cracks. Based on Halcrow, it will be slightly more - it include some strengthening works. But based on Kohler & Seitz (the structural engineering consultant from Germany), the repair should be comprehensive to ensure the structural integrity will not be affected over a long term. However, it is estimated to cost RM40 million.

The contractor rejected Leonhardt Andra and Partners's recommendation. Samy was sympathetic towards the contractor and got in Halcrow to conduct another study. However, JKR was of the opinion that Halcrow seemed to suggest limited repair works, suficient to meet the minimum requirement and compliance. JKR was of the opinion that the contract stipulates that it is design and built to the specified and agreed quality and standards and will not accept second best, just because the cost of repair will be mammoth - that's the contractor's problem and if the contractor can convince the government to pay for them using taxpayers money, and if the government agreed, then JKR had to take instruction. Samy seemed to suggest that the government had to step-in to pay for it as it would be too much for the contractor to pay. The cabinet disagreed.

The final decision:

The Cabinet has decided to appoint a German consultant to spearhead repair work on the Middle Ring Road 2 in Kepong.

Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu said today the decision was reached at the last Cabinet meeting and the ministry’s secretary-general is discussing with the consultants on the conceptual layout of the work plan, which will be ready by the end of this month.

"They have assured us that the repair work on 31 pillars would be completed in four- and-a-half months," he said. The cost is expected to be more than RM40 million.

Samy Vellu said the cost was initially estimated to be around RM18 million but it has more than doubled after it was decided that all the 31 pillars need to be repaired simultaneously.

So now, who is going to pay for the repair? BumiHiway of Government?

Maybe, Khairy can mediate and settle in the Malaysia Boleh spirit! Good luck to Bumi Hiway if they can Kau Tim this toy guy.

Read more here:

MRR 2

Samy vs JKR

MRR2 Repair to Begin

10m High Wall of Danger

2006-02-15T22:36:00.000+08:00

You buy a house costing a million in upmarket Mount Kiara - hell of expensive, but you believe it's worth it as it's a good investment.

Suddenly, at the back of your house, the neighbour developer built a 10 meter high wall which blocks your rights to have good airflow and lights. Worse off, the wall develops crack and wet soil seeps out of the cracks.

Now, you are at risk that soon, you will be asked to move out of your house due to the high risk of collapse. Nobody wants to buy your house and you have hundreds of thousands in mortgage loan to settle with your bankers.

Read this story:

House owners in Villa Aseana, a new housing project in Mount Kiara are angry that a 10m high wall has been built behind their new houses.

The developer of the land next door, Merge Power S/B erected the wall so that it could fill up the land’s sloping terrain with earth for its building project.

The wall however has showed signs of cracks and soils from the other side are leaking through the cracks. The residents had written to city hall and City Hall had issued an order to the developer to tear down the wall. The approved plan only allowed a 1m high wall. City Hall said they had given the developer one month’s notice to take down the wall or sent in the amended drawings for approval. City Hall said they will continue to monitor the developer and ensure that they abide by the plan.

What will you do if you are the dominant owner? What is your rights against the servient owner?

Let's look at a few English cases:

Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB: The case establishs that a landowner does not have unqualified rights over the airspace over his land. Facts: Skyviews employee flew over Bernstein's land, took photograph of his house and offered it for sale to Bernstein. Bernstein too exception and sued for trespass. Griffith J. dicta: "I can find no support in authority for the view that a landowner's rights in the air space above his property extend to an unlimited height. The problem is to balance the rights of an owner to enjoy the use of his land against the rights of the general public to take advantage of all that science now offers in the use of air space. This balance in my judgment is to restrict the rights to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it; and declaring that above that height he has no greater rights in the air space than any other member of the public."

Allen v Greenwood [1979]Court of Appeal: This case illustrate the important decision in respect of the easement of light. It makes clear that the amount of light which can be acquired as an easement is to be measured according to the nature of the building in question and the purpose for which it is normally used.

Colls v Home & Colonial Stores Ltd [1904] House of Lords: The amount of light which can be acquired as an easement is such amount as was required according to the ordinary notions of mankind for the beneficial use of premises.

Carr-Saunders v Dick McNeil Associates Ltd [1986] QB: In the case of business premises the right to light is sufficient light for the use of the premises for its ordinary uses. The case states that the question is not how much light has been taken but how much is left. The extent of the dominant owner's right is neither increased nor diminished by the actual use to which the dominant owner has chosen to put his premise or any rooms in them; for he is entitled to such access of light as will leave the premise adequately lit for all ordinary purposes for which they may reasonably be expected to be used. It will include all other potential uses to which the dominant owner may reasonably be expected to put the premises in the future.

Re Ellenborough Park, Powell v Maddison [1955] Court of Appeal: This is the leading authority on the essential characteristics which a right must possess in order to be capable of being an easement. First, easement cannot exist 'in gloss' (i.e. appurtenant to any land). Second, as to the need for an easement to accommodate the dominant tenement, this requirement would not be satisfied if the right is for the personal advantage of someone. Third, the requirement that the dominant and servient owners must be different persons arises from the fact that a person cannot have a right over his own land (i.e against himself). This requirement is satisfied if the two tenements are owned by the same person but are occupied by different person, Fourth, the right must be capable of forming the subject matter of a grant, i.e. the right must be sufficiently definite and that there must be both a capable grantor and grantee. The right must also be a kind already recognised as capable of being an easement.

Batchelor v Marlow (2001) Court of Appeal: the decision by the court demonstrates that a crucial factor in seeking to establish an easement is that the right claimed must leave the servient owner with reasonable use of the land.

Copeland v Green half [1952] Ch: This case laid down the principle that for a right to be an easement it must be a right against other land and not a right to possession of the other (i.e. servient) land.

Nickerson v Barraclough [1981] Court of Appeal: This case is about a landlocked except for an access to a highway over a bridge onto a lane belonging to the defendant who denied any right of way. The court of first instance held that an easement of necessity will exist if the land are made unusable and that there is a rule of public policy that no transaction should without good reason, be treated as effectual to deprive land of any means of access. However, the Appeal Court held that the doctrine by way of necessity was based on implication from circumstances and not public policy. Where an alternative route - albeit inconvenient - is available there can be no easement of necessity (Titchmarsh v Royston Water Co Ltd (1899).

Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) Court of Appeal: This is the leading authority on the acquisition of easements. The rule in Wheeldon is one of the ways in which an easement can be acquired by implied grant. The case laid down that on the grant of part of a tenement there would pass to the grantee as easements all quasi easements which were continuous and apparent; or necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the land granted; and used by the grantor at the time of the grant for the benefit of the part granted.

In essence, the rights capable of being easements are:

#A right to receive light through defined aperture in a building;

#A right to the passage of air through a defined channel;

#A right to have a building supported by the wall of another building;

#A right to require the servient owner to fence his land;

#A right to park a vehicle in a defined area but must not leave the servient owner without any reasonable use of his land;

#A right to the passage of piped water across another person's land;

#A right to a view:

#A right to privacy;

#A right to general flow of air over land.

The fundamental rule of law is that user of the rights must not use force in order to enjoy the claimed right, nor must user take place under protest from the servient owner (Nec vi). User who enjoyed by permission cannot be as of right (Nec precario).

Design & Build Debacle

2006-02-14T17:48:00.000+08:00

Problematic Projects Involve "Design-and-build" Concept - Shahrir

Public Accounts Committee Chairman Datuk Shahrir states that all projects implemented under the "design-and-build" concept had been problematic.

According to Shahrir that approach was conceivably chosen to overcome perceived inefficiencies of the check-and-balance, accountability and good governance approach in project implementation. He said that the wisdom then was that private initiative was far more efficient and giving the private contractor total control without any government oversight would see the projects completed much faster.

"Unfortunately, when things go wrong, there was no recourse to accountability," he said. Shahrir said his observation showed that what beset problem-hit projects like the privatisation of the Lumut naval dockyard and the construction of offshore patrol vessels for the Malaysian Navy, the MRR2 elevated highway, Matrade building and a hospital in Pandan, Johor, which appeared before PAC, was the belief that self-supervision would see speedier completion and delivery.

Was that the real objective when the government under Mahathir and Daim adopted the Turnkey concept, or was it a surreal reason?

The observed facts remain that Turnkey Design and Built concept was adopted to simplify and speed-up project awards which are mega in size.

First is the Vision 2020. Mahathir's dream is to make Malaysia, the new Japan in South East Asia. In order to push Malaysia to achieve a develop status by 2020, we needed a consistent minimum economic growth of 8% GDP for the next 25 years till 2020. From the government's collection of revenues from taxes and excise duties, it was be impossible to fund all those projects mega billion which will require the government to pump in hundreds of billions to generate domestic growth and development. To overcome that, the government had to get the private sector to raise the fundings for the projects and this way, it will reduce government borrowings.

Secondly, there was a fresh breed of corporate executives called the "New Entrepreneurs" groomed by Daim within Paremba and who had matured commercially to undertake bigger task to spearhead the UMNO-Daim-Mahathir Agenda. These new breed of professionals had enjoyed the political patronages and had the power and influence to get decisions made. They had the "godfather" on their side. In the name of NEP and Bumiputraship, it was a sure win situation and they sure had a fast-track generator of wealth and individual prosperity.

Thirdly, the worldwide entrepreneurs (particularly burgeoning in USA and Europe) are beginning ride the trend of the new "Billionaire Fashion parade". The rise of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Michael Milken and Jack Welch, Goldman Sach, Travellers & Citycorp,and the internet boom lead the pack of individuals and organization to a new era of economic explosion. The economy in USA beginning 1991 was riding an economic boom that lasted for more than a decade. This economic boom lead to the growth of massive billion dollar private sector borrowing and created readily availability of financial resources for private fundings, particularly from Junk Bonds. The merchant bankers had been successful in ballooning the US economy by way of mergers, acquisitions and "global acquisitions". These monies ultimately arrived at South East Asia with the rise of the Asian Tiger economies such as Korea, Taiwan, HongKong and Singapore. The second group of fast rising economies are Thailand, Malaysia, Phillipines and Indonesia. There were vast potential growth areas and with weak and kleptocratic governments who are prepared to "Kau Tim", the giant financiers with vast financial resources sees the opportunities to penetrate the system and "prostitute" them. Greed was the fundamental; craving was the decisive factors.

Mahathir was assisted by a coterie of jaggernauts who were more than persuasive. Thus gave rise to the "Billionaire Syndrome" in Malaysia and this in turn generated/created those mega billion projects. It was easy to get off-shore loans and bond fundings. Almost every public listed companies, big and small, jump into the bandwagon and ride the storm of economic activities. Mahathir was care-free as what he wanted was monies for development and to turn Malaysia into a new Japan in Asia. Mahathir had a Japanese economic advisor too.

What was envisage by Mahathir was pragmatic and possible. Malaysia, thus tango along the tide of globalization and liberalization. The problem was, during the fast growing phase, there was no monitoring and control system to tell the government the predictive negative outcome of decisions and actions. There wasn't enough "wisemen" who are honest to speak the bare truth and to highlight danger points. There were advisors who are "players within the same game", enjoying the milking and womenising.

Then, a new tidal wave came - the currency traders and hedge funds who saw another form of opportunites! The overheated economies of the Asian Tigers and Cubs are destined to be swallowed and trashed. It was known!

The end result - 1998 East Asian Economic Crisis and the collapse of the currencies against the USD. Malaysia was unprepared to face the hedge fund gamblers and risk-takers. The Pride and Ego of the system was too much for the body to digest. The governments were prepared to sign cheques that their body couldn't pay. It was like a cat that look himself in the mirror and saw himself a picture of a lion king. The cat believes he is a lion and fought the Manhattan leopards. The outcome: the cats were badly bruised, broken bones and broken teeth. Reality then prevailed and integrative and defensive actions within the economic zones save the situation from a total collapse.

It is now 8 years since the crisis. We are still licking our economic wounds and recuperating slowly. What next? Nothing, at this stage of hybernation and consolidation. It will take another 4 years of system adjustment and the rise of another maverick PM to see Malaysia driving another economic growth path. Pak Lah isn't good enough to play this game. He is a conservative and he lacks the muscles.

Who then can resuscitate the economic game-play? It's a million dollar guess. Another Mahathir and Daim will come along soon....

MRR2 - Samy vs JKR

2006-02-09T20:59:00.000+08:00

What? JKR not allowed to make an engineering design-decision regarding the methods of rectifications for MRR2 which was attributed to design shortcomings? The Prime Minister decides to mediate and calls on the Board of Engineers to be the court of final resort on the MRR2 Debacle? Isn't JKR under the Ministry?

The dispute - Works Minister wants to follow Halcrow's recommendation for rectification which was purportedly a face-saving (for himself) and will cost less for the contractor. Public Works Department (PWD) are convinced that the contract terms stipulate that the Turnkey Contractor is fully responsible and liable to make good the Work in full complaince of the terms of conditions of contract pertaining to design quality specified. PWD thus wants to Contractor to fulfil its obligations and ensure that the flyover meets the qualified quality specified.

However, Works Minister Samy Vellu admitted that some weakness in the design and climatic factors had contributed to the cracks in the Middle Ring Road 2 (MRR2) viaduct in Kepong.

"There's some problem with the design but it's the weather in this country that contributed mainly to the structural problem," Samy said.

He gave an assurance that the MRR2 would be safe for use after it was repaired in four months at a cost of RM18 million and that the viaduct could be used for 95 more years because viaducts were normally built to last 100 years.

He explained that the cracks were not on the road but on the pillars and truss of the viaduct.

What kind of bullshit explanation is this?

As a civil and structural engineering design consultant employed by the contractor, it is their professional and fiduciary duty to ensure that the structural design do take into consideration of all aspects, be they environmental, social, and operational into the design.

Samy Vellu said that although the local climate had been taken into account at the initial stage, the hot and wet weather conditions contributed to the cracks, compounded by the pipe leakage at the viaduct.

What crabs are they? This is oxymoronic reason. How can he say that although the local climate had been taken into account, the hot and wet weather conditions contributed to the cracks? The weather conditions in Malaysia has remain the same -Tropical Climate with temperature ranging between 20-36 degree and rainfalls throughout the last 35 years have been consistent; often wet and dry with intermittent rainfall. Is there a reason why the design engineers had not considered the hot and wet climate consistent conditions in existence over the last 35 years? In Law, this can amount to reckless negligence and the design engineers may be liable in an action for tort, should JKR seeks legal redress.

Samy admitted that the design factors had contributed to the cracks. Doesn't this constitute a breach of contract by the contractor? Again, this breach would also amount to reckless negligence and actionable in Contract and Tort.

The disagreement between the Works Minister and PWD seem to stem from the question of which report to follow - Halcrow or Kohler & Seitz? Both are reputable civil engineering design engineers internationally. Applying the legal principles, unless both report is factually contrary, the rights of PWD is reserved and that PWD can elect to apply the recommendations from either. It is the burden of the contractor to rebut the presumptions in the Kohler & Seitz's report if they are disagreeable with the presumptions and findings of Kohler.

However, it is observed that the Works Ministry is sympathetic towards the contractors possible hugh financial liability should the German consultant's recommendation is followed.

Isn't it absurd? Works Ministry is siding the contractor and fighting against their own department?

JKR has hundreds of PhD design engineers who are fully competent and highly skillfull in engineering design and the department is headed by the nation's best structural design engineer who happens to hold a doctorate in structural design.

By convention and the rule of law, the Works Ministry is not suppose to interfere with the engineering design aspects and decision-making. The Minister is suppose to administer the system and process and listen to their experts. If the department lacks the competency and ability, and are unable to provide a justifiable engineering solution, then only can the Minister step in to provide guidance and assistance by seeking external expertise.

However, it can be seen that non-engineers are making engineering design decisions and expert engineers are mouth-strapped and put under duress.

More puzzling is that the Prime Minister had to step in to mediate the differences and being a "Good-Guy", decided to call in the Board of Engineers to be the Court of last resort. What is happening to Malaysia? Are we having leadership crisis or a clash of civilisation?

MRR2 Repair to Begin (2006)

2006-02-04T09:56:00.000+08:00

In the Beginning ... 18th August Year 2004,

Samy said the repair will take 3 months ....

On 4th February 2006, one and a half year later,

Samy said it will take 3 to 4 months to repair.

In 2008, ... let's wait for the next announcement ...

Samy won't be there to answer ...

He retired!

New Works minister announced that ...

The repair will start soon...

But flyover bridge had been demolished then...

to make way for a new tunnel ...

awarded to BumiHiway joint-venture with MMC ...

Middle Ring Road 2

2006-02-03T19:52:00.000+08:00

Kuala Lumpur Middle Ring Road 2 (MRR2)route 28 was built by Malaysian Public Works Department (JKR) to connect neighborhoods near the boundary of Kuala Lumpur.

The entire highway system consists of Federal Route 28, Damansara-Puchong Expressway E11 (from Sri Damansara to Sunway Interchange) and Shah Alam Expressway E5 (from Sunway Interchange to Sri Petaling Interchange). M

RR2 is generally referred to Route 28 since Route 28 occupies about two-thirds of the system.

Construction on this ring road would divided on 3 phase, This sections include Kepong-Gombak, Gombak-Ampang and Ampang-Sri Petaling.

The project was awarded to a consortium consisting of Sukmin Sdn Bhd, Bumihiway (M) Sdn Bhd and Konsortium Kontraktor Melayu (Wilayah) and the contract is to design and built the entire package 11 of MRR2 which covers a 4km stretch and cost RM238.8 million (the exacy contract sum is RM238,828,257.16).

The contract period is 36 months and was completed in 34 months (May 1999 to March 2002)

Controversial issues

The Kepong Flyover was reported to be faulty because 31 of 33 pillars supporting the flyover were reported to have obvious cracks.

Public concern about the safety issues at Kepong Flyover was due to the risks faced by at least 4,300 motorists using the flyover at a time.

Investigations were held by the government and as a result, Kepong Flyover was closed to traffic and then reopened with only 4 out of 6 lanes.

Works Minister Datuk S. Samy Vellu then imposed a gag order on his officers saying that he alone will handle any queries on the Middle Ring Road 2 (MRR2) Kepong flyover repairs. But even he was reluctant to answer questions on the flyover which had been closed for repairs to cracks on 30 pillars which had attracted the Anti-Corruption Agency's attention.

"In this country today, only the Minister of Works knows what has to be done there (MRR2) and what is happening in this ministry. When I say it takes three months ... that’s the decision. We wait for the investigations by the ACA to be completed and after that, we will finish the job.”

“No more press statement from anyone except by me ... please tell all the engineers not to make anymore statements,” he said to an officer from the ministry.

Initial findings by PWD suggested that the temporary hoisting crane mounted on the permanent RC structural piers to launch the precast beams to the bridge decks could have exerted pressure on the concrete crossbeams and caused the cracks.

In its report to the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, the department said its preliminary checks found that the structure at the 11th package of the MRR II was found to be unstable because of the strain and caused the beams to split at three sections.

Samy Vellu said the PWD’s findings showed that the crane hoisted on top of the crossbeam could have added pressure and as result there was an overload on the beam.

The PWD, which carried out its own probe, revealed that the MRR II’s Kepong bridge, was “not stable due to internal redistribution of forces and alternative load paths due to yielding of reinforcement.”

Samy Vellu said due to excessive hot temperature there was no homogenous drying, externally and internally, because of differential (uneven) drying of concrete. According to him, this could be the other reason for the cracks.

Mounsell, Sharma and Zakaria was the turnkey design consultant engaged by BumiHiway and Minconsult was the checking design consultant representing JKR. Flint & Neill Partnership was first commissioned by the contractor to undertake an independent third-party investigations. At the same time, JKR had engaged a German consultant, Kohler & Seitz, to study the same problem. As both the investigation consultants had came out with different conclusions, the government engaged Halcrow to give the last word.

Earlier, before Halcrow was employed to investigate, Samy Velly had dismissed PWD's consultant, Kohler & Seitz findings that faulty design had caused the columns of the elevated highway stretch of the Middle Ring Road Two (MRR2) between Kepong and Selayang to crack.

Samy Vellu: "This is no design failure. The engineer can sue them (those making such allegations). Noboby can simply open his mouth and say design failure. The question of design failure doesn't arise."

Samy Velly said there had been "little cracks on the structure" which had been studied by experts from Australia engaged by the original consultant of the project and experts from Germany engaged by the Public Works Department (PWD), and both had come up with different views.

"I have asked Zaini (Public Works Department Director-General Tan Sri Ir Zaini Omar) to engage a neutral consultant to study both recommendations to see what actually needs to be done.

"Both of them (the two expert groups) gave two different views. So I have to satisfy myself with a neutral view, which (one) is right, before I give the next directive on what should be done," he said.

The government of Malaysia then appointed British Halcrow Consultancy Ltd on 12 August, 2004 to study the cracks that have appeared on 31 of the 32 crossbeams since 2000.

On the fate of the project consultant, he said: "We didn't find anything wrong with the design. We can't punish them. We cannot make accusations. (We) have to investigate what happened to the columns."

Halcrow has found a rare phenomenon--the expansion of a chemical compound, ettringite, had caused serious cracks. The compound contains calcium, aluminium, oxygen, sulphate, water, etc. On 25 February, 2005, Halcrow recommended to JKR to waterproof the bridge immediately, so that the delayed ettringite formation (DEF) would not result in further cracks.

According to Halcrow that has sought the service of Glascow University, ettringite is found in cement. Usually, it does no harm. But, under rare conditions such as during concrete hardening, temperature reaching over 70 degree Centigrade in the presence of sulphate and plenty of water, ettringite is formed, expanding dangerously.

If all the cracks are not waterproofed, more water seeps into them, aggravating the situation. JKR must stop the water.

Since 1999, when the MRR2 project started, over eight consultants from overseas have been appointed for the design of the project and investigation of the cracks.

In September 2004, The Sun Daily reported that the MRR2 cracks due to design flaw and improper anchorage of crossbeams

That was supposed to be the verdict of Halcrow. Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu, who disclosed the findings in a press conference in Parliament lobby said:

"The anchoring was not done properly which was the cause of all these problems. The design also did not indicate the proper anchorage of the beams and the columns."

Halcrow's report was prepared by its bridge engineering director Roger J.Buckby and submitted to the Works Ministry.

"They are still checking to see what went wrong with the design," Samy Vellu said.

Samy Vellu read out a portion of the Halcrow report:

"The main cause of excessive cracking in the crosshead to the T-shaped pier is a deficiency in the design and the anchorage of the columns reinforced into the crosshead. There is also a deficiency in the design of the transverse reinforcement in the top of the crossheads to resist splitting forces between bearings. The horizontal cracking in the crosshead directly above the columns is a direct result of the inadequate anchorage of the column bars into the crosshead."

Samy Vellu had earlier said it would cost RM20mil to repair the flyover located between Taman Bukit Maluri and the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia.

Samy Vellu would not comment on the apportionment of responsibility for the faults, and who should pay for it, adding that the government would pay for it first. He said the RM20 million repair bill he mentioned earlier was only an estimate but added that it would not exceed this amount.

"We can ask the contractor to pay, but if the contractor says he is not interested in doing the job for the lack of funds, then how? Do we have to wait until it obtains the funds? It can't be, as the work has to resume," Samy said.

The whole controversy expanded when eight officers from the ACA's Enigineering Forensic Unit, including a case investigation officer, started investigation into the problem tho' nobody made a report. The team of investigators spent six hours examnining the cracks on pillars and beams of flyover along the MRR2.

The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), apart from investigating possible fraud will also check whether it was built according to specifications. The ACA, which obtained documents relating to the design focused on the technical aspects of the flyover to check for any discrepancies in its construction. The eight-man team took samples from the damaged pillars and beams and sent them for composition and durability analysis. An ACA source said the analysis would show whether the concrete chunks were mixed and laid out according to the road construction industry's specifications.

“The investigations will focus on whether those involved cut corners to reap higher profits at the expense of safety and durability. The technical team will verify whether the builder had adhered to the specifications outlined in its building plan,” ACA spokesman Rosli Ali said. The investigation team led by Rosli Ali measured the length, width and depth of the flyover's pillars and beams.

Politicians wanted the Government to review the process of approving design and building contracts following the recent safety threat at the Middle Ring Road 2 (MRR2). Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee deputy chairman Dr Tan Seng Giaw said a briefing by Public Works Department (PWD) officials showed that the Government had only a minimum role in supervising the project.

“As a result, in the Package 11 stretch of the highway, hairline cracks were found in 31 of the 33 flyover pillars. It is wrong to make the contractor responsible from beginning to end without any PWD supervision,” the Kepong MP said, adding that the committee was briefed that only one PWD engineer supervised the project from time to time.

Bentong MP Liow Tiong Lai said there was an urgent need to study the awarding of design and building contracts.

The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) later gave the green light for the Public Works Department to continue with the remedial work.

Samy Vellu said the department was asked to complete the repairs within the three-month stipulated period. “The priority now is to ensure that the MRR2 is safe for use.” Repair work on MRR2 was halted for the ACA to carry out investigations.

Till today, it is more than one year, and the repair works has yet to begin.

Samy, what is three months to you???

Highland Tower Collapse

2006-02-03T18:23:00.000+08:00

This landmark case arose out of the 1993 tragedy of the collapse of a tower block in the Highland Towers development in Ampang, just outside the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur leading to loss of life and the loss of use of the Blocks that remained standing.

The event gained widespread publicity at the time, in particular as it was captured by a dramatic sequence of photographs taken by an American visitor to the Towers, and the frantic rescue operations over the next ten days.

The case has several important implications for Building Professionals in Malaysia, which will be the focus of this discussion, and also led to interesting developments and clarifications in the law of tort in Malaysia.

Brief facts

Highland Towers consisted of three blocks 12 storey high apartments named simply as Block 1, 2 and 3 respectively. It was constructed sometime between 1975 and 1978. Directly behind the 3 blocks was a steep hill with a stream flowing west (“the East Stream”), which would have passed harmlessly to the south of the Highland Towers site if it was allowed to follow its natural course.

Some time in the course of the Highland Towers development (as found by the Court) the East Stream was diverted by means of a pipe culvert to flow northwards across the hillslope directly behind Highland Towers. The approved drainage system on the hillslope behind Highland Towers was never completed.

On Saturday, the 11th December 1993, at about 1.30p.m., after 10 days of continuous rainfall, Block 1 collapsed.

The 2nd Defendant, an architectural draughtsman, was the purported architect of Highland Towers.

The Cause Of Collapse Of Block 1

In order to determine the liabilities of defendants on the allegations as charged by the plaintiffs, it is necessary at the onset to establish the cause of the collapse of Block 1 which lead to the forced evacuation Block 2 & 3. To decide on this, it is essential to disclose some brief facts.

Highland Towers & Its Surrounding Features

The retaining walls

The 3 apartment blocks of Highland Towers were built on elevated land with a relatively flat base. Directly behind it was a steep hill. Though some witnesses have describe the gradient of this hill to be 10 to 20 degrees but, by my estimate from various photographs tendered as exhibits, I perceive it to be far steeper. This hill was terraced, supported by retaining rubble walls made of boulders and cobbles of rock of varying seize placed together by mortar at a random fashion. Some of these walls had collapsed and were buried in the soil at the time of the Highland Towers tragedy. Those left are still standing, either in part or as a whole, but in a dire state of repair. From a physical survey was commissioned by MPAJ soon after the collapse of Block 1 on the affected area, covering the Highland Towers Site and the Arab Malaysian Land, it is apparent that these retaining walls were constructed in a haphazardous manner. Some were located on the Highland Towers Site with the rest in the Arab Malaysian Land.

Ownership of the slope behind Highland Towers

Both the Highland Towers Site and the Arab Malaysian Land once belonged to a common owner - the 1st defendant, who intended to develop the entire area into a housing scheme with 3 apartment blocks on Highland Towers Site and bungalows on the Arab Malaysian Land. When the lands were subdivided and issued with individual documents of title, the 1st defendant mortgaged the bungalow lots, consisting of 50 in number, to the 5th defendant in consideration of some financial arrangements. When the loans were not repaid, the 50 bungalow lots were transferred to the 5th defendant in November 1991 to offset the amount due.

The East Stream & pipe culvert

At the furthest eastern corner of the Arab Malaysian Land water from a stream, popularly known as the "East Stream" (which name is totally inappropriate since it actually flows westward), enters the 5th defendant land. The source of this stream originates from the Metrolux Land. It flows down hill in a westerly direction until it reaches a plateau where it forms a mud pond. From here the water is channeled into a set of concrete culverts which directs it to a pipe culvert (pipe culvert). This pipe culvert runs horizontally right across the hill slope of the Arab Malaysian Land. After passing through 10 bungalow lots, the water from this pipe is discharged into Lot 445 which is situated in the north. Lot 445 is a government land. This entire section of the land, as described, seems unaffected by the effects of the landslide that brought down Block 1.

The initial section of this pipe culvert was built as an integrated part of a retaining wall. It has manholes located at various intervals. Just by the side of this pipe culvert, running for some distance, is an open concrete drain. This was intended to drain surface runoff water while the pipe culvert catered for the water emanating from the East Stream.

All drainage and geo-technical experts who testified in this case agree that the flow regime of the East Stream into the pipe culvert running across the hill is highly undesirable and dangerous. Instead of water flowing along its natural course - downhill (following its natural terrain), it is now diverted into a man made structure that requires constant maintenance and supervision. Failure to attend to this will affect slope stability, causing a danger to humans living down slope. It must have been this concern that, subsequent to the collapse of Block 1, the rescue operators, upon discovering this unwarranted drainage system of the East Stream, redirected the flow pattern of this stream to its natural course, downhill in a westerly direction. They did it by placing sandbags in an area to prevent the flow of water into the pipe culvert. This is not completely successful since, by my observation during this Court's visit to the area, water is still detected in the pipe culvert.

Further down slope on the Arab Malaysian Land is network of drains. Those at the upper sector are earth drains while at the lower portion are made of concrete. These drains, I believed cater for surface water runoff while the pipe culvert was take care of the discharge emanating from the East Stream. Though in certain areas these drains are disconnected abruptly, presumably caused by the landslide that brought down Block 1, those at the upper level are still intact. But they are in an odd fashion. Starting from the top, a drain runs parallel for some distance along the pipe culvert. It then suddenly makes a U-turn to flow back in the same direction from where it came from. Then after proceeding for some distance, it is connected to a culvert across a road reserve. At this culvert and joining it is a drain coming from the opposite direction. By deduction, this drain from the opposite caters for water runoff on the southern side of the slope. From the junction the drain proceeds down hill and terminates abruptly at far right at a level parallel to the rear of Highland Towers. From an overall view of the post-collapse survey plan, this drain must have continued along the rear of Highland Towers until the end of Block 3 when it turned left down hill and drained into the lower section of the government land - Lot 445.

This drainage pattern too, in the view of all experts in the field of hydrology, is far from satisfactory. Firstly, large section of drains is earth drains that can be easily eroded. Secondly, water can infiltrate into the soil of these earth drains at a greater rate than those made of concrete. Thirdly, the flow pattern of these drains is undesirable. It does not flow naturally down hill. Instead it makes a number of U-turns, one of which even flows backwards to the direction where it came from. Fourthly, the drains are insufficient to accommodate the amount of runoff from the slope. Fifthly, the drains are in a vegetated area and maintenance is regularly and constantly required.

Before the Arab Malaysian Land was sold to the 5th defendant, Mr. Lim (DW1) was in charged of the drains on the slope. He ensured water in the drains flowed without interruptions, particularly from vegetation around it, and when the drains were damaged he would repaired it. Failure or neglect to ensure these has serious consequences as can witnessed by the flooding of the car parks at the Highland Towers accompanied by rocks and mud and a landslide on the slope some months before the collapse of Block 1. This was when Tropic moved into the Arab Malaysian Land to excavate and cleared the vegetation as well as leaving branches of trees and debris in the drains.

Bruce Mitchell's photographs

The 3 blocks of Highland Towers were built in such a manner that Block 1 and 3 were almost parallel to each other, with Block 2 in between set slightly back. From the window of the of the 4th floor of Block 3, a resident, Mr. Bruce Mitchell, had the presence of mind to snap a series of photographs just before the collapsed of Block 1. These highly commendable pictures, 6 in number, recorded the tragedy and rendered us a grime reminder of the last moments before the disaster that took so many lives and caused enormous loss of property. These pictures also provided invaluable information to specialist in the field of geo-technology to determine the cause of the collapse. They are marked as exhibit P7A - 7H but are commonly, throughout this trial, referred to as the "Mitchell Pictures".

As principal expert witnesses have relied extensively on these pictures to form their opinion, it is essential that I do give a brief description of each of these.

Photograph P7A, shows a view of the rear section of Highland Towers framed on both sides by the balconies from apartments in Block 1 & 2. At the furthest end of the picture is the hill slope. Erosion scars are seen in two areas where they are engulfed by vegetation, mainly trees which lean downhill as if being pushed by some force from above. Beneath is a rubble retaining wall. In front of this wall is a heap of earth with fragments of tar spawn over. Lower down from this spot is a continuous row of corrugated asbestos roofs in a state of collapse, with motor vehicles trapped under. Right next to this and slightly further front, is a cement slap which looks like an open-air badminton court. Supporting it is a rubble retaining wall topped by flower plants.

The left side of picture P7B shows a partial profile of Block 1 with some balconies of apartments facing Kuala Lumpur City protruding out. Beneath these is a tar-paved road with 3 motor cars parked in a row. At the far end of this road is a rubble retaining wall supporting a growth of lush green vegetation. The lower portion of this retaining wall has explored with soil spawn over a lower tier road. A lamppost standing close to the area where the soil is seen emitting has leaned.

Photograph P7C is the second frame of the same spot as P7B. The soil seen emitting in the earlier picture it is more profound. Substantial part of the retaining wall has collapsed. Greater volume of earth is seen gushing out of the disintegrated retaining wall. The lamppost has leaned more extreme.

P7D captures almost the entire Block 1 tilted at an angle with clouds of dust emitting from the base.

P7E records Block 1 almost tumbling to the ground. The rear apartments' balconies, now facing the sky are clearly visible.

P7F is a second frame of the same spot as P7E. In this subsequent shot, taken a few seconds later, there is a sea of dust with intermittent sight of a fallen building.

P7G reveals a wider view of the rear of Block 1 without the building (Block 1) obstructing. The dust from the fallen Block 1 is still present as evidenced by the white cloudily shades on the right side of the picture. In the center, starting from the top is the hill slope marked by scars extending to the right in a continuous line. Below, divided by a row of vegetation, is a rubble retaining wall which is still standing but split in the middle and slanting. In front of this is a large mess of expose earth, and floating on top are some cars with parts of the corrugated roof, which once provided a shade for the car park. At the extreme left of this photograph stands Block 2, with its landscaped terraced garden fully intact.

P7H is a pathetic view of the collapsed Block 1 lying on the ground in one piece with stunned spectators staring at the aftermath in total disbelief.

The Highland Towers Judgment -
Civil Suit No. S5-21-174-1996

The 3rd Defendant, was the engineer for Highland Towers.

The 4th Defendant was the local authority at the material time who had jurisdiction over the Highland Towers Site, the hillslope directly at the rear of Highland Towers (‘Arab Malaysian Land’) and the surrounding areas.

The 5th Defendant was, at the material time, the registered owner of the Arab Malaysian Land.

The 7th Defendant was the registered owner of a large piece of land (Metrolux Land) which is situated on top of a ridge, commonly known as Bukit Antarabangsa. This land is located just above the Arab Malaysian Land and at the material time was under development.

The 8th Defendant was the provider of management services to the 7th Defendant to develop the Metrolux Land into a housing estate.

Cause

The landslide that brought down Block 1 of Highland Towers was found by the Court to have been a rotational retrogressive slide emanating from a high retaining wall behind the 2nd of a 3-tier car park serving the 3 blocks of the Highland Towers.

Water was found to be one of the factors that caused this high wall to fail. This water emanated from poor and nonmaintained drainage, as well as a leaking pipe culvert carrying the waters of the diverted East Stream.

Liability

The following were the findings on liability by the Court:

The First Defendant was liable in negligence for not engaging a qualified architect, constructing insufficient and inadequate terraces, retaining walls and drains on the hillslope which could reasonably have been foreseen to have caused the collapse diverting the East Stream from its natural course and failing to ensure the pipe culvert diversion was adequate, and in nuisance for not maintaining drains and retaining walls.

The Second Defendant (Architect) was liable in negligence for not having ensured adequate drainage and retaining walls were built on the hillslope adjacent to the Highland Towers site, which he foresaw or ought to have foreseen would pose a danger to the buildings he was in charge of, in not complying with the requirements of the authorities in respect of drainage, in colluding with the First Defendant and Third Defendant (the Engineer) to obtain a Certificate of Fitness without fulfilling the conditions imposed by the Fourth Defendant (the Local Authority), in so doing not complying with his duties as Architect, and in not investigating the terracing of the hillslopes and construction of retaining walls even though he was aware they would affect the buildings he was in charge of, and also in nuisance as he was an unreasonable user of land.

The Third Defendant (Engineer) was liable in negligence for not having taken into account the hill or slope behind the Towers, not having designed and constructed a foundation to accommodate the lateral loads of a landslide or alternatively to have ensured that the adjacent hillslope was stable, for not having implemented that approved drainage scheme, for colluding with the First and Second Defendants to obtain a Certificate of Fitness without fulfilling the conditions imposed by the Fourth Defendant and also in nuisance as he was an unreasonable user of land.

The Fourth Defendant (Local Authority) although negligent in respect of its duties associated with building. i.e. in respect of approval of building plans, to ensure implementation of the approved drainage system during construction, and in the issue of the Certificate of Fitness, was nonetheless conferred immunity by reason of s95(2) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act.

The Fourth Defendant was however not immune in respect of its negligence in carrying out its post building functions of maintaining the East Stream. This also attracted liability in nuisance.

The Fifth Defendant (Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd) was liable in negligence in failing to maintain the drains on its land, and in taking measures to restore stability on its land after the collapse.

The Seventh Defendant (Metrolux Properties) and its Project Manager, the Eighth Defendant, who were liable in negligence and nuisance for preventing water from flowing downhill (into their site) and instead directing water into the East Stream, when they knew or ought to have known that this would increase the volume of water and inject silt, especially where there was extensive clearing on their land, into the East Stream where it would be deposited, which would in turn (as proved) cause or contribute to the failure of the drainage system and collapse of Block 1.

The Ninth and Tenth Defendants (essentially the State Government) were not found liable due to a technical issue in respect of the particular party sued.

The Sixth Defendant (an abortive purchaser of the Arab-Malaysian Land who carried out site clearing works) was not found liable on the evidence.

Impact On Duties Of Building Professionals

A. The Architect

(i) No Defence That Engagement Was A Limited One, At The Very Least Must Ensure The Other Aspects Of The Works By Others Was Done Competently

The Architect’s defence that he was only retained to design and supervise the 3 apartment blocks, and denied that his scope extended to the drainage, earthworks and retaining walls.

This was rejected by the Court.

The Court held that the Architect must take into account the condition of the vicinity of the land upon which the building is built, as well as the land itself, must be evaluated when assessing the safety of the building.

[Also, as a matter of fact the Court found that the Architect was concerned with the vicinity as well as the building itself when he submitted the layout plan to the authorities as it included terracing and drainage of the hillslope behind Highland Towers. He must therefore ensure that this work, although carried out by others, is carried out in a competent and workmanlike manner]

(ii) No Difference In Standard Of Care For Unqualified Practitioner

Even though the Architect was in reality only an Architectural draughtsman, the Court measured his conduct against the standard of a reasonably competent Architect, holding that if a man is unqualified but holds himself out to be possessing a skill, he would be judged by the standard of a reasonably competent qualified person.

(iii) No Excuse To Say That Employer Forced Non- Compliance With Laws

Finally, the Court appears to have emphatically rejected the excuse of the Architect that he could not stop his boss from doing anything (in the context of colluding with the employer and engineer in obtaining Certificates of Fitness for the three apartment blocks without fulfilling the conditions imposed by the Local Authority and not ensuring the terracing and retaining wall were properly designed, provided for and sufficient to withstand slope failure even though he was aware it would affect the buildings he was in charge of) – the Court has clearly stated that when the law is broken, the Architect must report to the authorities – the architect must ensure that the law is followed even at the risk of being discharged.

B. The Engineer

The Engineer’s defence that he was only retained to design and supervise the structural aspects of the 3 apartment blocks, two retaining walls within the Highland Towers compound and submit plans for the drainage and two and denied that his scope extended to the drainage, earthworks.

This was rejected by the Court

The Court held that the Engineer must take into account the condition of the vicinity of the land upon which the building is built, as well as the land itself, must be evaluated when assessing the safety of the building. He should have ensured the stability of the hillslope behind Highland Towers.

His duty was not discharged by a mere belief that the terracing of the hillslopes and the retaining walls built on them were carried out by an engineer or other consultant. He ought to have inquired as to

whether this professional was qualified, and
whether what he was doing affected the safety of the Tower Blocks.
[Other Aspects of the Engineer’s negligence – gross violation of his duty of care to the purchasers in the issue of a notification to the Authorities that the approved drainage was built when only 10% was built]

Summary

Building Professionals require to consider the vicinity of the site as well as the site itself in assessing safety-particularly in regard to adjacent hillslopes.

Building Professionals cannot hide behind limited scopes of engagement-these are a matter between themselves and their employer, but the scope of their duty owed to persons likely to be affected by their services is not so limited.

Building Professionals require to ensure that others engaged to do work likely to affect the structures they have been engaged to design/supervise are competent and will carry out their work in a workmanlike manner.

If Building Professionals hold themselves out to have expertise in a particular area when they are unqualified, their conduct will be measured against the ordinarily competent qualified practitioner of such expertise.

Building Professionals must ensure the law is followed, reporting to the authorities if necessary if their clients break the law, even at the risk of being discharged by their client.
Impact On Tort Law

Negligence

The Highland Towers decision becomes another Malaysian High Court decision which diverges from the approach of the English Courts and adopts the approach taken by other Commonwealth jurisdictions in allowing the recovery of “pure economic loss”, especially where sufficient proximity can be demonstrated between the negligent act and the loss. Pure economic loss is the loss related to the product itself which is defective by reason of negligence, as opposed to the loss or damage caused to the property of the Plaintiff by this defective product.

Nuisance

In this cause of action, a Defendant is liable if the Plaintiff can show the Defendant is responsible for a condition or activity which interferes with use or enjoyment of his land, and that condition or activity is not a reasonable user by the Defendant. The Highland Towers decision extends the law on nuisance in Malaysia by requiring an additional requirement to be established by the Plaintiff, i.e. whether the damage was of type that the Defendant could reasonably foresee, adopting a principle from an English case, Cambridge Water Co. Ltd v Eastern Countries Leather plc [1994] 1All ER 53 @ 70.

Rule In Rylands v Fletcher

In this cause of action, if a person brings unto his land and collects and keeps anything to do with mischief and it escapes, he is answerable prima facie for all the damage which is the natural consequence of the damage, regardless of whether the Defendant was negligent or not. The Highland Towers decision, following the Australian High Court in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd 120 ALR 42 abandoned this as an independent cause of action and merged it into the general law of negligence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Highland Towers decision clarifies the extent and nature of the professional duties and responsibilities of Building Professionals demanded by the law, and contains important developments in tort law in Malaysia.

It remains to be seen if the Appellate Courts in Malaysia will endorse these principles.

The Judgments

Dr Benjamin George & Ors v Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya and other applications
[1995] 3 MLJ 665

HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM) — ORIGINATING MOTION NOS 25–42–94, 25–41–94 AND 25–39–94
FAIZA TAMBY CHIK J
3 OCTOBER 1995

Summary

The applicants in this case were the developer and several residents and purchasers of blocks two and three of the Highland Towers Condominium (‘the Highland Towers’). The respondent was Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya (‘the MPAJ’). The MPAJ had issued notices pursuant to s 83 of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (‘the Act’) to the applicants, which had the effect of ordering them to either repair or demolish blocks two and three of the Highland Towers and the walls on the nearby hillslopes, within three months from the date of the notices. The directions in the notices were contrary to the recommendations proposed by the Highland Towers committee, which was set up by the respondent to study the safety of blocks two and three, immediately after the collapse of block one of the Highland Towers. The applicants had actively tried to sought a solution to the Highland Towers problem, but the respondents refused to discuss the legality of the s 83 notices. This clearly ruled out any possibility that the respondent would withdraw the s 83 notices. Therefore, the applicants applied to the High Court for certiorari via O 53 of the Rules of the High Court 1980, to quash the notices on the grounds, inter alia, that the notices were unreasonable, unconstitutional, and illegal. However, the respondent argued that it had acted within its jurisdiction, and that the s 83 notices were not amenable to certiorari, as alternative appeal procedure had been provided by ss 83(3), (6), 91 and 92 of the Act.

Holdings
Held, allowing the application:

(1) Section 83(1) of the Act confers a broad discretion on a local authority by allowing it to issue a s 83 notice after conducting such inquiry as it thinks fit to satisfy itself that a building is in a dangerous condition. A notice may require the owner of the building to either repair the defects or demolish the building within such period of time as it may specify. However, this discretion must be exercised in good faith, for a proper purpose, and after consideration of all the relevant factors. Further, a s 83 notice can only be directed to an ‘owner’ of a building as defined in s 3 of the Act.

(2) Both s 83(3) and (6) of the Act are not appeal provisions, as neither provides recipients of the s 83 notices with an opportunity to appeal to a higher authority against the validity of the notices. Thus, there is nothing in s 83 which provides them with an alternative statutory appeal procedure in preference to certiorari. Similarly, ss 91 and 92 also do not provide a genuine appeal procedure, as a right of appeal under the provisions only arises against a mandatory order made by the magistrates’ court. This would mean that the recipients of the s 83 notices could only appeal if the respondent had seeked for the mandatory order.

(3) An administrative decision which has failed to give adequate weight to a relevant factor of great importance or has given excessive weight to a factor of no great importance could be set aside on the ground of unreasonableness In this case, it was impossible to comply with the s 83 notices, because it was irrational to expect the applicants to do repairs on the hillslopes which they did not own, and which would have amounted to committing a trespass. Besides, three months was a wholly inadequate time period to carry out the repair or demolition works.

(4) Moreover, the directions in the notices departed from the recommendations of the Highland Towers committee, without giving any reason or explanation. This amounted to a breach of legitimate expectation rendering the s 83 notices ultra vires.

(5) Pursuant to the Act, the s 83 notices can only be served on the owner of the relevant building. In this case, as the strata titles of the Highland Towers had not been issued, the registered proprietor of the land, ie the developer, would be the owner. However, the respondent had issued the s 83 notices to the residents of the Highland Towers who were not owners for the purposes of the Act. Even if they were the owners, the s 83 notices were still ultra vires as they were not issued to all ‘owners’ of these buildings, contrary to art 8 of the Federal Constitution which states that all persons are equal before the law.

(6) Highland Properties Sdn Bhd, who was the owner for the purposes of the Act, had a duty to implement the views of the purchasers of blocks two and three of the Highland Towers. In turn, by virtue of the express and implied obligations imposed in the sale and purchase agreements between the developer and the purchasers, the purchasers might have to make contributions in order to comply with the s 83 notices. The s 83 notices must also be served on the financial institutions who had granted loans to the purchasers, as the purchasers had already assigned their rights under the sale and purchase agreements to them.

(7) It was clear that there was a failure on the part of the respondent to comply with the express and implied limitations on their statutory discretion in this case. The s 83 notices, which were illegal, had the potential to deprive the residents of blocks two and three of the Highland Towers of their apartments should the blocks be demolished. This was also contrary to art 13 of the Federal Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law.

Steven Phoa Cheng Loon & Ors v Highland Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR) — CIVIL SUIT NO S5–21–174 OF 1996
JAMES FOONG J
11 AUGUST 2000

Summary

Highland Towers, constructed sometime between 1975 and 1978, consisted of three blocks 12-storey high apartments named as Block 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Directly behind the three blocks was a rather steep hill with a stream (‘the east stream’). On 11 December 1993, Block 1 collapsed. Immediately after the collapse of Block 1, the residents of Block 2 and 3 were prevented from entering their apartments by the local authority for fear of the instability of these two buildings. The purchasers/owners of Block 2 and 3 issued a writ against ten defendants: the first defendant was the developer of the three apartment blocks; the second defendant was the purported architect of Highland Towers; the third defendant was the engineer of Highland Towers; the fourth defendant was the local authority who had the jurisdiction over the Highland Towers site and the surrounding areas; the fifth defendant was the registered owner of 50 lots of bungalow land (‘the Arab Malaysian land’) directly at the rear of Highland Towers; the sixth defendant (Tropic) was a company that carried out clearing works on the Arab Malaysian land; the seventh defendant was the registered owner of a piece of land (‘the Metrolux land’) situated on top of a ridge just above the Arab Malaysian land and at the material time was under development; the eight defendant was the provider of management services to the seventh defendant to develop the Metrolux land; the ninth defendant was the state government of Selangor; and the tenth defendant was the Director of Land and Mines of the State of Selangor.

The plaintiffs’ claim was for damages caused jointly and/or severally by the acts and/or omissions of the defendants, their servants and/or agents in causing and/or contributing to the collapse of Block 1 and thereby forcing the plaintiffs to evacuate and abandon Block 2 and 3. The cause of action relied on by the plaintiffs against the defendants were negligence, nuisance and the liability under Rylands v Fletcher.

There were two conflicting theories advanced on the cause of the failure of Block 1. Supporting the plaintiffs’ contention was Dr Weeks and on the side of the fifth defendant was Prof Simons. The significance of these two theories was the belief that it would affect the liabilities of the parties, particularly of the first and fifth defendant. If Dr Weeks’ version was accepted, then it was contended that the cause of failure emanated from the fifth defendant’s land. Professor Simons, on the other hand, insisted that it originated form the first defendant’s property.

The defendants raised the following preliminary issues: (i) plaintiffs 44 to 73 had no right to bring the action against the defendants by virtue of s 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 since their rights had been assumed by the financial institutions in favour of which a loan agreement cum assignment had been executed; and (ii) the claim of the plaintiffs could not be maintained because it was a claim for pure economic loss, the two apartments being the defective products.
The ninth and tenth defendants raised the following preliminary points: (i) citation of the wrong party — the ninth defendant should be the State Director; and (ii) particular officer or officers not named — by the provision of ss 5, 6(1), 6(4) and 18 of the Government Proceedings Act, the particular officer or officers in the government who committed the tortuous wrong must be identified, otherwise the claim against the tenth defendant must fail.

Holdings
Held:

(1) With recognition by such high authority of such loan agreement cum assignment to be an equitable charge, the court saw no reason why the word ‘charge’ in s 4(3) of the Civil Law Act should not include equitable charge of this nature. For after all, this equitable charge was specie of a charge. Thus when this instrument of assignment purported to be by way of a charge, the effect of s 4(3) of the Civil Law Act was no longer applicable. Further, after perusing the loan agreements cum assignments, the court could not interpret them to be absolute assignments by the plaintiffs to the financial institutions. Though the word ‘absolute’ appeared in the documentation of the loan agreements cum assignments, there were also other clauses to show that the rights and interests in the sale and purchase agreements so assigned have not been transferred to the assignors. Besides, by the principle of equity of redemption, the plaintiffs were also able to maintain their right to sue (see pp 220G–221A, F).

(2) After due consideration, the court was more inclined to adopt Prof Simons’ interpretation that the landslide that brought down Block 1 of Highland Towers was a rotational retrogressive slide emanating from the High Wall behind the second tier car park. The court found that water must have been a major factor in causing the collapse of the high wall and the landslide that followed (see pp 234G, 235D).

(3) When the second defendant had represented himself as a qualified architect to all and sundry, as displayed by his actions, then he must be judged according to the character he had assumed. At the time when this defendant exercised his duty as an architect for the Highland Towers project, he must have foreseen that the apartments he built would be sold, and purchasers, their servants and/or agents would be occupying them. Thus these purchasers would be closely and directly affected by his acts and/or omissions and for this, he must have or ought to have them in contemplation when he was directing his mind to his acts and/or omissions. By this, the court found a duty of care existed between the second defendant and the plaintiffs and from the facts of the case, it was obvious that the second defendant had breached his duty of care to the plaintiffs (see pp 241A, C–E, 243C).

(4) When you had a hill so close and acute then the third defendant should have reasonably foreseen, judging by professional standard as an engineer responsible for the structure of Block 1, the danger of a landslide producing a lateral load against the foundation of the building. For this, he should have exercised care to either design and construct a foundation to accommodate lateral load or ensure that the slope was reasonably stable. Failure to do so was a breach of his duty of care he owed to the plaintiffs since his duty was to ensure the safety of the buildings he designed and built (see p 246G–H).

(5) As a general rule, an employer of independent contractor is not liable for the default or negligence of such a contractor. But here the plaintiffs were focusing on the appointment of such personalities, not after they were appointed. This means that before their appointment, there was a duty placed upon the first defendant to vet through them to ensure that they were competent and possessed such skill for the task they were employed to undertake. This involved inquiries and investigations into their credentials and qualifications. Obviously, these were not done. Despite being notified by the second defendant that he was not a qualified architect, the first defendant proceeded to engage him and even allowed him to appoint the third defendant as the consultant engineer for the project. This was surely negligent on the part of the first defendant (see pp 248H–249B).

(6) When implementing works of terracing of the slope and construction of retaining walls and drains on both the Arab Malaysian land and the Highland Towers site, the first defendant must have reasonably foreseen that such works, if insufficient and ineffective, would cause the collapse of Block 1 and result in damages to the plaintiffs, who were its neighbours under the principle of negligence. The retaining walls and the drainage system had been proved to be insufficient and inadequate. The court must conclude that the first defendant had breached his duty of care to the plaintiffs (see p 249B–E).

(7) Like the second and third defendants, the first defendant was liable for nuisance as one of the creators of the nuisance by its acts and/or omissions. Further, as an owner of the Highland Towers site, it had not been a reasonable user of its land for it failed to maintain the drainage system and the retaining walls resulting in the damages suffered by the plaintiffs who were its neighbours (see p 251B–C).

(8) Judging from the facts as disclosed in the chronology of events, the fourth defendant was negligent of the wrongs as alleged by the plaintiffs. However, since the acts of the fourth defendant were within those specified activities under s 95(2) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act, immunity applied to the fourth defendant (see pp 252H, 255E–F).

(9) However, the immunity did not apply to the fourth defendant for acts/omissions committed post-collapse. Despite the pressing need and the obvious knowledge of the urgent requirement for a master drainage plan to secure the stability of the slope so as to ensure the safety of the two apartment blocks, the fourth defendant did nothing. This was certainly inexcusable and definitely a breach of duty of care owed by the fourth defendant to the plaintiffs (see pp 256H–I, 259A–B).

(10) By the acts and/or omissions of the fourth defendant, the court also found that the fourth defendant was an unreasonable user of its land in failing to maintain the stream post-collapse which was under its care. Its acts and/or omissions were foreseeable to cause a damage to the plaintiffs — its neighbours. For this, the court found the fourth defendant was also liable to the plaintiffs for nuisance (see p 259E–F).

(11) Since it was already decided that it was due to a landslide caused primarily by water which emanated from the damage pipe culvert and the inadequate and unattended drains on the fifth defendant’s land, then the plaintiffs had sufficiently proved that the causa causan of the collapse of Block 1 leading to the forced evacuation of the plaintiffs from Block 2 and 3 was due to the acts and/or omissions of this defendant in not maintaining these water-courses. From the factual circumstances as disclosed, the court found that the fifth defendant could reasonably foresee that by its acts and/or omissions in failing to take care of its land, it would cause a land slide that would destroy Block 1 and forced the abandonment of Block 2 and 3 (see pp 261H–I, 262C–D).

(12) Given the circumstances of this case and applying the common law principle to nuisance, the court was convinced that the fifth defendant caused an actionable nuisance to the plaintiffs (see p 267B–C).

(13) Judging by the facts, the court did not find that the sixth defendant was negligent or committed nuisance. There was no evidence advanced to link the acts of this defendant in excavating and clearing Arab Malaysian land to the cause of the landslide that tumbled Block 1 (see p 268C–D).

(14) The assertion of the seventh and eight defendants during submission that they should not be made responsible for the acts of their independent contractors was an after thought for it was never pleaded in the statement of defence. Further, even if this issue was allowed to be raised, the defendants were not exempted from the liabilities for the acts of their independent contractors. The factual situation in the present case showed that it fell within the exception to the general rule, ie non-delegable duty covering cases involving extra hazardous acts or omissions (see pp 276G, 277D–E).

(15) As property developer and/or manager of development projects on a hill, the seventh and eight defendants must have known or ought to have known that by diverting watercourses on their land to the east stream, they would increase the volume of discharge to this outlet. With an extensive area of their land denuded of trees, they must have foreseen that water flowing over this area would carry with it eroded soil and silt which would be deposited down stream. And as proved, these caused or contributed to the collapse of Block 1 and forced evacuation of Block 2 and 3 (see p 280F–G).

(16) In the factual matrix of this case, the water at the Metrolux site was naturally on the land but the defendants had artificially erected barriers on their land to redirect its natural flow path into the east stream which consequently caused the damage suffered by the plaintiffs. Such acts of the defendants were closely and directly connected to the damage and for this, the seventh and eight defendants must be liable to the plaintiffs (see p 281H).

(17) For the purpose of this case, in respect of claims arising out of rivers, streams or watercourses, very little difference was made since the State Director, who was the tenth defendant, was already a party to this action. However concerning matters arising out of the ownership and/or occupier of the surrendered lands, the situation was different. The plaintiffs had not in their pleadings alleged that the tenth defendant was the person being sued this particular aspect of the claim. The plaintiffs’ statement of claim repeatedly and distinctively asserted that the tenth defendant was brought in as a party to this suit ‘by virtue of the fact that the property in stream and watercourses on Arab Malaysian land and its surrounding was vested in the state authority of Selangor’; never as a State Director to the surrendered lands. Thus, the claim of the plaintiffs against the ninth defendant must failed in respect of drainage matters but maintainable against the tenth defendant. But for the surrendered lands, the plaintiffs’ claim must fail against both defendants (see pp 284G–285A).

(18) The statutory provision implies a need to identify and distinguish the officer or officers concerned before the plaintiffs can proceed with attributing liability to the government. In the situation at hand, only the drainage and irrigation department was named in respect of matters related to drainage. Such defects were too serious and fundamental for such proceedings against the government to succeed; it must fail for non-compliance of the legislative provisions laid down for such action against a state government. By this, the plaintiffs’ claim against the ninth and tenth defendants must fail (see p 287A–D).

(19) On the issue of ‘pure economic loss’, following Dr Abdul Hamid Abdul Rashid & Anor v Jurusan Malaysian Consultants [1997] 3 MLJ 546, the court held that claim for pure economic loss can be maintained against the defendants (see p 244H).

(20) From the evidence tendered, the court was without doubt that all defendants, except number sixth, ninth and tenth, were joint tortfeasors in causing the same damage to the plaintiffs. For this, contribution could be recovered from each other (see p 288A).

References:

Malaysian Law Journal

http://www.lawyerment.com.my/library/doc/laws/casecode/jdgm/11082000-01-3.shtml

http://www.trett.com/digest/doit.asp?iss=27&art=4

UPDATED REPORT: 18th February 2006

From the principles laid down in the Court of Appeal judgment, the Highland Towers decision clarifies the extent and nature of the professional duties and responsibilities of Building Professionals demanded by the law, and contains important developments in tort law in Malaysia.

Howeve this decision of the Court of Appeal remains subjected to the Highest Court, i.e. the Federal Court, whether they would endorse these principles.

Final Judicial Decision

Today, 18th February 2006 frontpage headline the Federal Court's DecisionFederal Court: MPAJ has full immunity from claims

Local councils cannot be held liable for losses suffered by anyone should a building collapse, the Federal Court has ruled. The court said this when it held that the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) was not liable for losses suffered by 73 residents of two blocks of the Highland Towers condominium who had to evacuate after the collapse of Block One 13 years ago, killing 48 people.

The three-member panel presided by Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Steve Shim Lip Kiong and Federal Court judges Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamed and Datuk Arifin Zakaria ruled that the MPAJ was not liable in the pre-collapse period as well as post-collapse period of Block One. They said local authorities such as the MPAJ were given full immunity under Section 95 (2) of the Street, Drainage & Building Act 1974 (Act 133) from claims for the pre-collapse period.

The court was unanimous in allowing the MPAJ’s appeal to set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision holding the MPAJ 15% responsible for the pre-collapse period. As for the post-collapse liability, it dismissed with a 2-1 majority the cross-appeal by the 73 residents of Block Two and Three against the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the MPAJ was not liable for losses suffered during the post-collapse period.

Justice Shim gave a dissenting judgment.

Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad said that if the local councils were made liable, it would open the floodgates to further claims for economic loss, and this would deplete the council’s resources meant for the provision of basic services and infrastructure. “Projects will stall. The local council may go bust. Even if it does not, is it fair, just and reasonable that taxpayers’ money be utilised to pay the ‘debts’ of such people? In my view, the answer is no,” he said.

In overturning the trial judge’s decision to allow the post-collapse claims, Justice Abdul Hamid said vandalism followed every disaster, natural or otherwise, in undeveloped, developing or developed countries. “Recent events showed that even the most-powerful military and the best-equipped police force in the richest and most-developed country in the world were unable to prevent it,” he said.

“In my view, the provision of basic necessities for the general public has priority over compensation for pure economic loss of some individuals, who are clearly better off than the majority of the residents in the local council area,” he said.

He said a local council has an endless list of duties to perform for its residents and relied mainly on assessment rates and fees for licences.

Justice Arifin concurred with Justice Abdul Hamid’s findings.

In his dissenting judgment on the post-collapse liability, Justice Shim said:

"The MPAJ could not seek shelter in Section 95(2) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act because this was a case of negligence in failing to formulate and implement the master drainage plan so as to ensure the stability and safety of the adjacent Blocks Two and Three."

He said there was an assumption of responsibility by the MPAJ to do what it had promised.

“I do not think it would be in the public interest that a local authority such as the MPAJ should be allowed to disclaim liability for negligence committed beyond the expansive shelter of Section 95(2) or other relevant provisions of the Act nor would it be fair, just and reasonable to deprive the respondents of their rightful claims under the law,” he said.

In 2000, High Court Judge James Foong ruled for the 73, and apportioned liability as follows: Arab-Malaysian 30%, Metrolux and MBf Property Services together 20%, Highland Properties 15%, MPAJ 15%, draughtsman Wong Ting San 10% and engineer Wong Yuen Kean 10%.

Conclusion

The case is put to rest. The local authorities received the legal mandate that they are fully immune to liabilities. Even in committing reckless negligence, they will be shielded by the law under Section 95(2). Presumably, they could be care-free in all their ways of doing things and approving anything they deem fit in their full discretion, without the need to consider any threats to life, or to others.

It is the sad day for the Rule of Law in Malaysia.

Only if, and only if, we still can take the case to the UK Privy Council, can be hope to seek natural justice and the fundamental Rule of Law.

I Cry for You, Malaysia!!!

Goodbye Pelangi, Welcome Berinda

2005-11-22T13:47:00.000+08:00

In 1975, Frank Goon, the son-in-law of Phillip Kuok, the brother of Robert Kuok and director of Kuok Group, ventured into property development.

He bought the first piece of land in Tebrau, and named it Taman Pelangi. which means Rainbow Garden.

Thus, is the beginning of Pelangi Sdn Bhd.

It was tough in the beginning but Frank was determine in his one man crusade to proof to the Kuok's family that he can built an empire from dust.

Frank believes in doing things differently. He pioneered the 24 feet (8 meter)wide terrace houses. Those days, houses are built at 20-22 feet width. Frank saw the need of residents for a wider home where the hall and dining hall can be slightly bigger for comfort.

Frank felt that at 20-22 feet, houses are claustrophobic. With the wider space, the bedrooms can be bigger and the built-in furnitures design can be more posh. At the same time, these houses can have the space to park a minimum of two cars within the compounds.

Frank's business boom and Pelangi became a household name in Johor Bahru. The company was listed in the stock exchange and for decades, they made good money and gave investors something to cheer about.

Then, this year, Kuok Brothers exited Pelangi and sold the entity to Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB). Frank resigned from Pelangi.

Today, Frank is rebranding a new product called Berinda. Berinda will spearhead the property business of Kuok Brothers (KBSB). The existing housing projects under Kuok, that is, Taman Impian Emas, Taman Molek, Taman Redang and Taman Penderosa will be brought under the Berinda brand name.

Berinda will now challenge the established brand Pelangi in Johor market. Will they succeed? I believe so. Frank is known to be an innovative and creative crusader. He had hand-picked and pluck away the good salesperson from Pelangi and all his core personals from Pelangi is now with him in Berinda.

In the six months since Frank exited Pelangi and headed Kuok Bros property division, KBSB had chalked up housing sales totalling RM150 million, while Pelangi seems to have lost much of it rigour. In the last two years, KBSB was not even achieving half of the sales amount. That's testimony of the leadership of a property crusader.

Within the next six months, the results will tell.

So, did PNB made the right decision to remove Frank or to acquire the interest of Pelangi? I think that decision will be fatal to Pelangi's future.

Read this article: Robert Kuok Exit Pelangi

Privatisation Fiasco Unfolded Again

2005-10-17T13:40:00.000+08:00

Police Contract

It was suppose to be an ingenious way to build housing for the police to resolve its accommodation problems. The government transferred 3 pieces of prime police land to a private developer and develop and sell and in return, the developer will build police stations and living quarters for the police.

However, the developer completed his commercial projects worth RM110 million but the quarters and police station remain incomplete. It is alleged that the developer had raked in millions in profit but abandoned the remaining works consisting of police stations and police quarters.

In June, the Prime Minister announced that the government had approved RM2.5 billion to provide better housing and working environment for policemen including reviving abandoned police housing projects nationwide.

This is not something unknown in Malaysia ... it is a continuing fiasco of the privatisation program mooted by Diam Zainuddin with the approval of Mahathir.

It was design to fail from the beginning and the results confirmed it.

In the first place, the contract were awarded to some well-connected politicians who sub-contract the commercial portions to some property developers in return for several millions in commissions. After building the portions and selling them, they pocket all the monies jointly. Now, they have to cough out money to build the police stations and quarters which is zero income and 100% liabilities. None of them, the concessionaires and the developers, would want to fork out these monies which runs into millions. What they had gained, they have kaput it, and sudah belanja untuk beli rumah bungalow, mercedes, kawin empat; wang pun sudah habis ... So, balance of the project have to be abandoned and the government must now come in to rescue.

This is the concept of Malaysia Incorporated and Malaysia privatisation's Success. Don't blame the concessionaires alone. They had to pay millions to some guys too. They don't get all! Maybe, Diam Zainuddin should be brought back to rescue these projects because he had played a large part to make this happen.

Or, alternatively, Khairy can come up with a better idea to privatise the reconstruction under the NEP and UMNO Agenda ... This is not the first and would not be the last. Do a research and you will find the answer - It is all within the UMNO Agenda from the very beginning.

Innovative & Creative Toilet Design

2005-10-17T09:56:00.000+08:00

I received an email that attached various pictures of which three of them impressed me:

Musical toilet.

Trumpet-shape closet with piano by the side.

Innovative & creative!!!

Public toolbox.

Wow...that relieving!

The city is caring! Men can now relieved themselves if they had an urgent call!

Men's toilet.

Even the urinals are psychologically appeasing!

Is that what can satisfy a man?

Pusat Niaga Permata Magna

2005-10-14T09:37:00.000+08:00

I was asked by a friend who had bought a commercial premise in Kl to peruse an invoice issued by Magna Park pertaining to the delivery of Vacant Possession (VP).

Magna Park has directed the purchaser to take delivery of VP(letter dated 26th September 2005) and had invoiced $12,775.00 for quit rent, insurances and maintenance cost.

The invoice states that the purchaser is required to pay within 14 days for:

Quit Rent for year 2004 and 2005 $1,588.80
Insurance Premium for invoice Year 2004 and 2005 $1,186.60
Maintenance Charges invoiced $5,400.00
Renovation Deposit $4,500.00
Consent Fee $100.00

Reading the the invoice, I was perplex and flabbergasted.

Isn't this daylight robbery?

First, the letter dated 26th September 2005 informed the purchaser to take delivery of vacant possession. Therefore, vacant possession could only take place after this date.

The Sales and Purchase Agreement (S&P) states that Upon completion of the said Property, and ONLY upon completion, the purchaser will then be required to insure and keep insured the respective property against loss or damages (section 4.03(a). 4.03(b) of the S&P states that "From the date the Purchaser takes vacant possession of the said Property or the date deemed to have taken vacant possession, the purchaser will then have to pay insurance premium."

Similarly, section 5.06 of the S&P states that the Purchaser shall from the date he takes vacant possession contribute from time to time, a fair and justifiable proportion of the cost and expenses of their maintenance, upkeep and repair.

Both the two conditions clearly specify that such payment for maintenance and insurance shall only be paid after the delivery of Vacant Possession. What is puzzling is that the invoiced payment was for the period 2004 and 2005. Assuming that Vacant Possession did take place in September 2005, how can the developer invoice quit rent, maintenance and insurance premium for 2004 and 2005? Is this fraud?

Coming back to Vacant Possession, the developer had only sent this letter informing the purchaser that Vacant Possession can now take place.

However, Clause 23 of the Housing Development Act 1966 (HDA 1966) specify the Time for delivery of vacant possession. It states that Vacant Possession shall be delivered to the Purchaser in the manner prescribed in Clause 24 HDA 1966.

Clause 24(1) stipulates the manner of delivery of Vacant Possession. First, the Architect must certify that the construction of the property must be duly completed and water and electricity supply are ready for connection; and secondly, the Vendor has applied for the issuance of the Certificate of Fitness for Occupation from the Authority in compliance with all the relevant provisions of the Uniform By-Law 1984. Then if all these are complied, the purchaser would then be required to pay all other monies due under the S&P; thereupon, the Vendor shall let the purchaser take possession of the said property.

Clause 24(2) states that the delivery of vacant possession by the Vendor SHALL (must) be supported by (a) a certificate by the Architect certifying that the building is duly constructed and completed in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the S&P and also in compliance with the relevant Acts, By-Laws, and Regulations imposed by the Authority; and that (b) a letter of confirmation from the Authority certifying that FORM E as prescribed under the Uniform Building By-Law 1984 has been duly submited by the Vendor, checked and accepted by the Authority.

At such, it is condition precedent that the vendor must have fully complied with Clause 24, that is, the purchaser must have received a Certificate of Completion issued by the Architect; and the Vendor had submitted FORM E to the Authority and it was duly accepted by the Authority; and that water and electricity supply are made ready for connection to the said Building; then the Vendor can seek to deliver vacant Possession to the Purchaser and the Purchaser would then be required to pay all the other monies due.

The vendor will have to deliver all the documentary proof to the purchaser that they had duly complied with Clause 24; otherwise, the property will not be construed to be ready for vacant possession. If the contract period had passed and the Vendor fails to deliver vacant possession, the Vendor shall be liable to pay to the Purchaser Liquidated Damages (LAD) at the rate of 10% per annum calculated from the date stipulated in the contract (S&P) to the date when the Purchaser takes Vacant Possession. Such LAD shall be paid immediately upon the date the Purchaser takes Vacant Possession (Clause 23(2)).

As can be seen, Magna Park did not provide the documentary proof to the purchaser in accordance with Clause 24 HDA 1966. At such, no vacant possession could had taken place as per the letter from the developer. The purchaser is advised not to pay the monies requested. Any attempt to apply undue influence or to exert duress upon the purchaser will be construed as a breach of contract and an act of repudiation of contract. Section 74 of the contracts Act 1950 would then apply.

Whatever it is, the claim of $12,775.40 is wrongful and not in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract. The Vendor can only invoice the quit rent, insurance premium and maintenance charges beginning from the date of vacant possession. As the invoice had stated the charges for the period of 2004, that is, before the date of vacant possession, it is an attempt to mislead or misrepresent to the purchaser to induce him to pay for services beyond the terms of the contract. This can be implied that the developer may have misrepresented their claim and of which would cause innocent/ignorant purchaser to suffer losses beyond the terms of the agreement.It is unprofessional and unwise for the developer to act at such and would destroy their integrity.

Bank Negara Resource Centre Project

2005-10-11T09:40:00.000+08:00

H&I Niaga Won

Questions looms loudly in the construction industry as most people are perplexed over the award of a RM320 million Bank Negara Resource Centre Project to a little unknown company who is currently facing problem of paying some levy owed to Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB). An investigation conducted by NST on this company also found that they had not submitted audited accounts for 3 consecutive years from 2002 to 2004. The Company had also failed to submit its profit and loss accounts to Companies Commission of Malaysia.

The award surprised major construction companies which had been bidding for the large project, like Maju Holdings Bhd, Ahmad Zaki Resources Bhd, PECD Bhd, Ranhill Bhd and UEM Builders Bhd.

Attempts to ascertain the company’s capabilities and track record have been hampered by a lack of current information.

H & I Niaga is owned by Amerudin Ismail (2mil shares) and Ismail Mohd Hashim (3mil shares).

H & I Niaga made headlines years back when their project involving the construction of the Royal Malaysian Navy Recruit Training Centre in Kota Tinggi Johor was reported to have been defective and the building was found to have so many cracks and leakages problem. JKR and the Ministry of Defence had investigated the shoddy works and massive rectification works were carried out respectively. Nothing was further reported on this project thereafter.

H&I Niaga was also the contractor for Cheras Velodrome Project and some projects awarded by UiTM.

Bank Negara said they had evaluated the selection process and the award was based primarily on competitive pricing. How is it that Bank Negara would select a contractor who are currently facing financial problem and could not even pay CIDB levy - that's amusing! The selection process must be tainted with cronyisma and nepotisma. How could an award fo such a large project not have taken into consideration the weak financial positions of a company when the size of the project is so mammoth? Surely, if a company had not submitted its profit and loss accounts for the last three years, something must be grossly wrong? Or, alternatively, NST investigation and report was defective and grossly wrong; I doubt.

We will have to hear some explanation from H&I Niaga and most of all, Governor Zeti of Bank Negara.

H&I Niaga Hangs

Kuching Airport Extension - Progress Photos

2005-09-26T10:37:00.000+08:00

September 25, 2005

Kuching International Airport is undergoing extension works.

Shots taken unpon entering the terminal building. Note that the escalators had been sealed off and passengers checking-in at the first floor immigration check-point must walk up through the stairways.

Temporary Hoarding along the passageway where passengers will have to walk to the taxi stand. Note that they are full of holes and lack of maintenance culture.

View from the passageway where part of the hoarding was removed.

Shots taken from the taxi disembarkment stand

On arrival at the Kuching airport from the town, we took this shots

Kuching Airport: Quality or Myth?

2005-09-25T09:43:00.000+08:00

Global Upline Sdn Bhd, the turnkey contractor for the redevelopment of Kuching Airport (Extension) which is currently in progress has reported achievement of ZERO fatality for over two million man-hours. This was reported by their assistant project director Bobby Ting, the son of Tan Sri Ting Pek King, the superman of the construction industry.

The project contractor hoped that the key success areas were identified and strategies being planned. Its strategies would concentrate on three areas with special attention where all relevant parties would keep a watchful eye on one another with regards to safety. The three areas were any hazardous operations; any repetitive unsafe acts by workers; and any potentially hazardous conditions.

Bobby Ting said that its safety department would focus its safety campaign in these critical areas to ensure that the accident rate did not build up to a critical level.

The reported zero fatality of two million man-hours are applauding and an excellent record. The only question that arises is :

The project is only about one year and two months-old. On July 13, 2004 The Star reported of the project award by Deputy Transport Minister Datuk Douglas Uggah Embas and slated to be completed by 2007.

Assuming the project do not work during holidays such as Chinese New Year, Gawai, Hari Raya, Deepavali, Merdeka day, Labour day; perhaps, the working days would only be about 330 days. We have to consider too, that each year, there are about at least 30 raining days. Then, 300 working days are more realistic.

Therefore, based on the information, it would mean that the project would have employed more than 833 workers for the full 14-months duration. From my observation over the last one year, of which I had been visiting Kuching every month, I don't seem to see there are more than 300 workers at this stage; and in the initial few months, there are less than 200 workers.

At such, I just wonder how the two million man-hours have been tabulated.

Even if we based on the full 365 days per year working days, the mathematics would have required an average of 142,857 man-hours per month, or 4,761 man-hours per day. If we based on an 8-hour working day, then the project must be having 595 workers each and every day for 365 days in a year, and for the full 424 days (14-months). The project records cannot take into consideration any man-days before the official contract award-date as this would amount to illegalilty and illegal possession of site.

I would like to congratulate Global Upline on their super-fantastic records, but I would appreciate if I can be given the records to tally the figures as it looks to me more of a myth rather than reality.

Speaking about safety on the project, I happen to be at the airport last month and this month, and I saw a few site staff of Global Upline walking along the passageway; they do not wear safety boots. I asked them, and was told that they have yet to received the boots from the management. I was told that they had been working there for more than 2-3 months.

The news and promotion campaign for safety and health control is encouraging but it is hope that we are hearing and will also be seeing that it is "Cakap Serupa Bikin".

We appreciate Bobby Ting and Global Upline are man of words and deeds; not just a sandiwara.

Some pictures of the current work progess at the airport (September 2005)

Naim Cendera - The New Sarawak Construction King

2005-08-30T09:47:00.000+08:00

The construction industry has been contracting drastically over the last two years, and governments projects are running dry. Contractors can be forgiven for getting paranoid and may have to look into possible overseas action.

It is expected that the third quarter and fourth quarter economic results will fare no better than the second quarter of the year, and thus we should see far greater contraction.

In this weak economic environment, there stands out a company in Sarawak who has the ability to sustain their business, and are confidently projecting to generate 30% growth over the next three years.

The industry is ushering a new king of construction - Naim Cendera Sdn Bhd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Naim Cendera Holding Bhd (NAIM) - reported that they had been recently awarded three contracts by the Federal and State government of Sarawak for infrastructure and building projects worth RM507.5 million.

The projects awarded include the bridge over Batang Belingian (contract value of RM35 million), the new Sarawak State Assembly building (DUN) worth RM296 million, and the upgrading of the Julau-Sibu Road which is RM176.5 million.

Naim is expecting another award for the Pasukan Gerakan Am project at Batu Kawa in Kuching which is expected to be about RM313 million and has also received a Letter of Intent (LOI) for the proposed Bengoh Dam which is also worth hundreds of millions.
In addition, Naim also is developing a 100-acre mixed development project at Sungei Kuap in Kuching and has other property development projects in Miri, Kuching, etc.

Currently, Naim’s value of confirmed order book is more than RM1.252 billion which may be sufficient to sustain its business earnings for the next three to four years and this book order is expected to be enhanced in the next few months.

Naim’s chairman, Datuk Abdul Hamed Sepawi is confident that the group is capable to maintain a cumulative average growth rate of more than 30% over the next three years.

Naim is poised to be the next kingpin of the construction industry surpassing former greats such as Gamuda, MMC, Roadbuilders, Ho Hup, Suncon, MTD, Mitrajaya, Binapuri and IJM.

Robert Kuok Exits Pelangi

2005-08-16T09:51:00.000+08:00

PERMODALAN Nasional Bhd (PNB) expects to complete its acquisition of Pelangi Bhd, a property developer, by next week. PNB president and chief executive officer Tan Sri Hamad Kama Piah said the company had sought a three-week extension for the mandatory general offer (MGO) from July 18.

"We have been given an extension until August 26 for the minority shareholders to accept the offer. We have to wait until then before we can conclude the MGO," he said.

"This was the third extension as some (minority shareholders) wanted time for them to decide (whether to accept the offer)," Hamad Kama Piah told newsmen.

Meanwhile, Bursa Malaysia Bhd said in a statement that it has delisted Pelangi, effective yesterday. Hamad Kama Piah explained that as PNB had acquired more than 90 per cent of Pelangi, Bursa Malaysia had to delist the company according to the listing requirements. Hamad Kama Piah also said an exco has been set up to chart Pelangi's future direction and programmes. "We have decided to let the Pelangi board members determine the direction they want to take and we will monitor their progress. We have appointed exco members to chart and oversee suitable programmes.“ Acquisitions of stakes in companies are very much in PNB's plans, he said, adding that PNB will buy and sell when the opportunity arises. "As a fund manager, we are strategically positioning ourselves in certain areas.“ On the current market sentiment, he said the trend is improving and he believed that the fundamentals are there.

On May 26, 2005, Business Times reported that PNB had made a mandatory takeover offer for the 50.74% stake it does not already own in property developwe Pelangi Bhd for RM 283.74 million. PNB offered to pay in cash for Pelangi’s 369.49 million shares at 77 sen per share. In its financial year ended March 31, 2005, Pelangi reported a net profit of RM32.17 million on the back of RM168 million in revenue.

COMMENTS:

Is PNB Buying into a sunset institution? Pelangi, is a household brand name in housing development, particularly in Johor Bahru, and is reknown for it's quality houses and strategic positionings, and locations. It is generally believed that Pelangi's houses has a 10% premium over market prices.

In fact Pelangi were the one of the pioneer property developer that offers largescale residential housing estates that are 8m wide (24ft width). Those houses, you can see them parking up to four cars within their fenced compound. Most Malaysian residential houses are 22ft or 20ft wide. In Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, you can even see houses of 18ft width. In fact, those buyers will feel claustrophobic.

With the exit of Robert Kuok, Pelangi announced the resignation of Frank Goon Swee Keong as the company’s MD and Datuk Musa Ayub Saad, Datuk Md Zahari Md Zin and Huang Yan Teo as directors.

The success story of Pelangi is synonym with Frank Goon. It was Frank's dream and vision that had brought Pelangi to what it is today, although the credit goes to Robert Kuok. Frank is a brunt and straight man, who is unassuming; he does not accept second best. He is the driver of the system and adopts a power culture. Frank is known to be one who will give stupendous reward to his people who are high performers.

Over the last few years, the property business in Johor Bahru is getting more competitive and less lucrative. Literally, Pelangi had ride on the good market time, a time where competition is not as stiff as of today. Johor Bahru is seeing a mushrooming of housing estates and the infiltration of myraid of "immigrant developers" coming from Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. Profit margins are coming down drastically, tho' still profitable. That seemed to be the objective reason for the readiness of Kuok to exit at a "ripe" time.

PNB will be acquiring an asset in the sunset period. It will pose a great challenge to the acquirer to emulate the previous success story of Frank Goon and his acolyte. Good luck to PNB; and it surely will be better luck to Frank Goon and Kuok Group.

Samy Toll Pre-emptive Strikes

2005-08-15T09:54:00.000+08:00

Samy Toll

SAMY CALCULATED PREEMPTIVE STRIKE

Samy: Be prepared for rise in toll charges

Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu said the Government had to stop the payout as it could no longer burden itself with increasing costs. “After taking many things into consideration, the Government wants to put a stop to this practice,” he said. As such, he said, the people should be prepared for an increase in toll charges.

Samy Vellu said the Government had to pay out hundreds of millions of ringgit in compensation to the concessionaires when they asked for an increase in toll charges, as provided for in their agreements. “Based on the concessionaire agreements, a toll increase cannot be avoided when the time comes,” he added.

FIRST, he agreed to terms that was North-bound; such one-sided lucrative contracts that would create instant billionaires of which investment bankers would be willing to be bed-partners to fund these projects.

NOW, we are suffocated by the toll-haze; and the directorate is coquetting empathy.

This is the best Ventriloquism you can ever watch!!!! Let dance to the tune .....

No LRT for Kuching until the Traffic Jam justifies

2005-07-17T12:21:00.000+08:00

Sunday Tribune, Sarawak

July 17, 2005.

Sarawak State CVLB Chairman Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar said it is not a feasible idea to set up a LRT system (Light Rail Transit) for Kuching, Sarawak as it has yet to have high population and massive traffic congestion to justify the introduction of LRT.

So, does it mean that Sarawak will only consider to have LRT after seeing massive traffic congestions?

Why is it that our system of government always choose to be reactive?

Must we face a crisis before any form of planning or actions will be taken to resolve it? When will we learn to plan ahead?

Another Kelantan Bridge is Falling Down, Falling Down

2005-06-30T12:03:00.000+08:00

Bridge of Death Claims another life

For umpteen years, residents of Pengkalan Pasir Village, 6km from Kota Baru, Kelantan had been appealing to the authorities for the repair of this bridge. On February 14, 2005, this bridge claimed its second victim. 5-year-old Noralili Mohd Yusof fell into the canal through a gap between the rotten planks. Last year alone, one villager was killed and two others broke their arms and legs. Perhaps, now the authorities may act.

When Norlili Mohd Yusof drowned after falling through a wooden bridge in February, the authorities swore such an accident would not happen again.

But four months after the five-year-old’s death at Kampung Kok Pasir, a similar accident has claimed another life.

Last Monday, Khatijah Rahmatullah, 65, died after part of a wooden bridge in Kampung Dendang, Ketereh gave way on Monday. The widow’s body was found floating in the canal at 2.30pm yesterday. Khatijah’s son, Mohd Kamal Mohamad, said his mother was returning to a relative’s house after visiting him when the incident occurred at about 8.30pm.

"She comes to my house every night to see my children and then spends the night at a relative’s place," he said.

The incident has once again highlighted the problem of old and rickety wooden bridges over irrigation canals in the State. But an added complication has emerged in the wake of Monday’s incident.

It appears that some bridges were maintained by the State Drainage and Irrigation Department and others by the Kemubu Agricultural Development Authority (Kada).

State Public Works Department director Lim Chow Hock said efforts were being made to repair all bridges maintained by the department. He said while the bridge at Kampung Kok Pasir had been repaired, that at Kampung Dendang came under Kada’s jurisdiction.

When our Prime Minister was addressing the recent civil servants at Kuantan recently, he mention that Malaysia had first class infrastructure and third class mentality. It seem only a half-truth; for we have good infrastructure in the cities but not the kampung; and we have fourth world mentality ........

Towering problem for Marina

2005-06-26T12:08:00.000+08:00

June 26, 2005, The Star

"EVERYTHING is for sale, including me!" Hajjah Marina Yusoff said half-jokingly when SC Cheah, The Star reporter approached her at the darkened lobby of Menara Marina recently.

Time is running out for Marina Yusoff, the former magistrate, lawyer, politician & an astute entrepreneur (Wanita UMNO leader, and later Semangat 46 leader). She has until the end of this month to pay Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd the redemption sum of RM122.77 million in cash. Failing to do so, Danaharta may commence action to recover the debt, and she may lose ownership of Menara Marinara, the 36-storey mixed commercial building in Jalan Tun Razak, Kuala Lumpur, which Marina believed to be worth approx RM350.

Over the last 10 years, the project has always been in complex and onerous situation. The project started sometime in 1994, which happen to be almost at the same time the neighbouring project, Wisma Semarak of Telekom started calling for tender for the piling works. If I remembered correctly, Wisma Semarak started the piling works in 1996 and the main building works commenced on 1997, and completed in year 2000.

Both these two projects seemed to faced a lot of difficulties during the construction period - Bad Fungshui or whatever you believe it to be. To add to the difficulties, the economic crisis in 1997-1998 affected the main contractors financial cash flow and disrupted the work progress(both the main contractors are Public-Listed companies - CP Bhd for Marinara and Mancon Bhd for Wisma Semarak).

While Wisma Semarak was finally completed in year 2000, Marinara Tower was still struggling. The project stalled when Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd, the developer and the flagship company of Marina, decided to terminate the main contractor's contract. CP Bhd, the main contractor brought legal actions against Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd.[Period].

Whatever it is, the project did not have a good start, and Marina's hope is that the bad patch will end soon, and that she can recover her investment. Will she? It's going to be extremely tough.

Best of luck, Marina!!!!

SuperKids crossing Bridge in Nabawan, Sabah

2005-06-17T12:18:00.000+08:00

NST, June 15, 2005.

The picture shows the school children who had to daily cling on to their dear life as they negotiate their way across this dilapidated suspension bridges in Nabawan, Sabah.

For many urban children, a trip to school means boarding a car or a bus and being dropped off outside the school gates. But for youngsters at a remote village in Sabah’s interior Nabawan district, the daily trip to school and back is a gamble with their lives. The 60 children of Kampung Labang, some 250km from Kota Kinabalu, have to cross the 80m-wide Sungai Sapulut on a rickety suspension bridge that is nothing more than a few cables strung across the waterway to go to SK Labang. With their shoes inside their school bags, the children aged 7 to 12, walk barefooted on the lower cable with hands grasping the upper cable.

Nabawan district officer Raymond Basir said yesterday that repair work on the bridge would be carried out as soon as possible. But how soon? Before someone gets killed, or what?

$60,000 for Diplapidated Bridge in Sabah

2005-06-17T12:15:00.000+08:00

$60,000 allocated to repair the dilapidated bridge

RM51.5 million for landscaping in Kuala Kangsar, Perak and only $60,000 is needed to repair the dilapidated bridge in Nabawan, Sabah. And it took many months, sometimes years to get the approval for such disbursement.

I hope the Sabah State government will not siphon this allocated to pay for a landscape project in Kota Kinabalu Municipality.

In a similar case in February, there, someone had to die to get the authority to start looking at the bridge.

Pengkalan Pasir Village

For umpteen years, residents of Pengkalan Pasir Village, 6km from Kota Baru, Kelantan had been appealing to the authorities for the repair of this bridge. On February 14, 2005, this bridge claimed its second victim. 5-year-old Noralili Mohd Yusof fell into the canal through a gap between the rotten planks. Last year alone, one villager was killed and two others broke their arms and legs. Only after someone had died will the authority begin to act.

I weep for Malaysia! And, how long will it take the bridge to be completed?

Even to Plant Flowers, We Need Consultants?

2005-06-17T12:10:00.000+08:00

RM51.5 million for landscaping and RM1.5 million for poverty eradication.

This is what the Kuala Kangsar Municipal Council requested under the Ninth Malaysia Plan.

MP of Kuala Kangsar, Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz was baffled at the request. "Tourism is tourism, but we have to take care of the people, too," she said, criticising the "topsy-turvy" budget and urging the council to review it.

Rafidah, who is also International Trade and Industry Minister, was puzzled why the council allocated RM11.2 million to landscape its Sayong river front, RM8 million to set up a pocket park, RM3.6 million to upgrade housing areas and RM1.8 million for "greening" the roads.

"Tourists won’t come into housing areas to see the flowers. They have better flowers back home," Rafidah said.

She said that the council should focus on basic amenities, schools, infrastructure and socio-economic activities. Rafidah noted that many budgets appeared skewed towards landscaping projects and intended to raise this matter at the next Cabinet meeting.

During a meeting with Chinese community leaders today, she was told that the National Landscape Department paid RM300,000 in consultancy fees to a company owned by a university lecturer to propose landscaping ideas for Kuala Kangsar.

"Even to plant flowers, we need consultants?"

She noted that the allocations requested for landscaping and beautification projects made up almost half the RM118 million requested by the council under the Ninth Malaysia Plan. She suggested that gotong-royong activities be held to beautify the town, stressing there was no need for landscaping consultants.

The council requested only RM7 million for schools, RM7.6 million for socio-economic purposes, RM13.5 million for city services and RM32 million for infrastructure development.

COMMENTS:

Cheerio Rafidah! You are the first MP to admonish the pedantic dim-wit of municipal council. What about other municipal councils? Previously, there was also a report of the same farcical scenario at Sebarang Perai Municipal but the MP didn't make any sound and the State Local Government Committee Chairman Datuk Dr. Teng Hock Nan backed the council's decision.

The Seberang Perai Municipal Council (MPSP) had then awarded contract worth $1.5 million or about $5,700 a week to contractor to supply and plant flowers at the entrance of the council’s headquarter. Datuk Dr Teng Hock Nan defended the council’s decision saying that the 100 dozen a week of flowers are needed to brighten up the council office.

Hiring a landscape consultant may be necessary for certain circumstances, such as the project at KLCC-Twin Tower in KL, and in housing projects, where there is a need to get professional advice to ensure the landscape projects the values of the community lifestyle and the theme of the park.

But, for Municipality, they can get these advice for free if they call for request for proposal from the various well-established landscaping contractors. Contractors do have their own landscaping experts and are able to submit their proposal based on the need statement of the council.

So, why do we have to pay $300,000 to a lecturer for the consultancy fees? Well, please don't fault the lecturer! He was approach with this opportunity and he make good of that opportunity. The Council should know what they need. According to the lecturer, $300,000 is cheap as it equates to only ONE AP for the import of a luxurious car.

DRB Rail Project Land in Arbitration Court

2005-06-14T10:05:00.000+08:00

DRB RAIL PROJECT IN DISPUTE COURT

DRB-HICOM Bhd chairman Tan Sri Dr Saleh Sulong said both the Government and the company have mutually agreed to appoint an independent claim consultant (ICC) to resolve the dispute on the variation order of the double-tracking project between Rawang and Ipoh. The variation order refers to the work ordered by the Government that is not included in the original contract, which reportedly is worth RM700mil.

The ICC or arbitrator will be appointed “which will be acceptable by both parties to address the issue of the variation order,” he told reporters.

For more info on contract & dispute management, go to:
www.projectmanagementysm.blogspot.com

Let Us Build The Crooked Bridge

2005-06-08T10:00:00.000+08:00

CROOKED BRIDGE

Johor has made a strong pitch to the Federal Government to go ahead and build the "crooked bridge" to replace the Causeway. State officials said that any further delay in the construction of the project would seriously retard growth in Johor Baru. This message was given to PM Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi during a briefing yesterday.

The Johor government believed that the proposed bridge was an integral part of the re-development of the city centre, and that it was crucial that a decision on the project be made soonest possible.

"Everything hinges on whether the bridge will materialise or not," said a senior state official. "We cannot wait forever for Singapore to join hands to build a straight bridge."

Singapore has not indicated if it is in favour of a straight bridge to replace the whole Causeway, despite two rounds of talks between Abdullah and Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong. This uncertainty is of concern to Johor state officials, who feel the Federal Government should go ahead and build a half-bridge.

MAYBE, A CROOKED BRIDGE IS A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF OUR SYSTEM. That bridge may serve as a mirror for us, to remind us always of our cultured artistic impression!!!!

Malaysia has record 40,000 Class F Contractor

2005-05-01T01:04:00.000+08:00

Record Numbers of Contractors

COMMENT: In a class by themselves
By Abdul Razak Ahmad, NST, 1st May 2005

Malaysia Boleh sekali lagi!!!!!

According to the Abdul Razak Ahmad, Malaysia has 42,313 registered contractors approximately, one contractor for every 614 persons (based on 26 million population).

This may be yet another world record and should be considered for the Guiness Book of Records.

So, this is yet another Malaysia Boleh-lah...

The only problem is: the Government recently announced a pump-priming of RM2.4 billion projects that will be up for offer, and if each one of this contractor is going to be given part of this cake, each contractor would be having a contract worth RM 56,720. But if the Class A contractors are going to take a major portion, then 35,000 Class F contractor will be jobless and waiting to be wind up.

There are approximately 35,253 Class F registered contractors. They are the smallest fry of the contractor’s world, dependent on government contracts that range from RM5,000 to RM100,000 project.

If we are to add the Class F Ali-Babas, China-Babas, Indian-Babas, Singh-Babas and Mat Salleh-Babas, probably we would have 70,000 Class-F contractors.

The Government, realising it has a problem on its hands, recently announced that it was freezing the issuance of new Class F licences but it is just too late.

The only solution is: follow Mahathir's system of economic expansion and create massive development projects and make more roads, bridges, schools, computer labs, airports, church, mosques, temples, toilets, cyberjaya 2 and 3, putrajaya 2 and 3, twin-tower and queen-tower, etc, etc.. and every contractor will have a job to survive.

If Pak Lah dare not do that, then maybe, Mahathir should come back to rule.

The Wisdom From CIDB

2005-04-09T11:55:00.000+08:00

April 9, 2005, NST Business Times, page 1

CIDB Call to Builders - Go Abroad Now!

It is a necessity and the time is now - GO ABROAD,” says CIDB CEO Datuk Hamzah Hasan. According to Hamzah, going abroad is the effective way of countering job losses locally and competition posed by foreign players in the name of globalization.

It was reported that CIDB’s Construction Business Development division senior manager Ahmad Asri Abdul Hamid who had just returned from India armed with a basketful of job opportunities, adequate for big and small construction players to diversify their earning base.

Ahmad Asri felt that apart from the need to build capacity, Malaysian contractors must change their mindset and strategise when going abroad. “Overseas is the way … but it is not easy.

The CIDB is at the same time concerned with the quality and ability of Malaysian companies to perform without tarnishing their image abroad. CIDB is currently looking at putting in place a process and mechanism to accredit contractors especially those involved in the overseas market.”

Ask the contractors why they are not going abroad?

The answer is simple. "Kalau tak boleh cari makan di sini, mana ada kemampuan untuk melabur seberang laut?

The first criteria of investment abroad is .....CAPITAL...MONEY... A LOT OF MONEY!!!!! To many of the local contractors, making ends meet is the current problem. Everyone will want to invest overseas, if they had the capacity and SEED CAPITAL. Those who are currently investing abroad, they are either Public Listed Companies (PLCs) or Extremely Rich Businessmen. PLCs can do it as they can seek financial fundings from banks or investment Bankers. Private Limited Companies... you need to come up with million dollars of collateral to get bank to approve any loans. And to tender a foreign project, just to pay for the Tender Bond, put tak Larat-lah!!!!

So, thank you for your kind wisdom, Mr CIDB!

For CIDB's information, almost all contractors knows (including any stupid ones) that going abroad is a right move which will expand the boundaries of business opportunities, but, can you go abroad with your underpants and singlets and tell the foreign client, "PLEASE TRUST ME, I CAN DO A GOOD JOB; I JUST HAVE NO MONEY; JUST GIVE ME A CHANCE PLUS 15% ADVANCE PAYMENT & I WILL PROVE TO YOU SAYA BOLEH DAN MALAYSIA SEMUA BOLEH?"

Why is it that the Koreans and Japanese are successful in investing abroad in the last 30 years? Firstly, it is their Government's policy and effort with strong encouragement and proactive actions from the authorities such as Works Ministry, Construction Development Board, Govt-owned Industrial Banks, etc. Their government had initiated and directed the Industrial Development Banks & Export-Import (EXIM) Banks to fund all contractors who could secure overseas Federal Government-funded projects. Those who could show a letter of award from government-sponsored project overseas, they would be given total fundings. All they do is assigned their payment certificate as collaterals to the EXIM Banks or Industrial Development Banks, and they will receive the cash flows to pay for the project expenses.

Can CIDB do the same for the local contractors, particularly, Bumiputra Contractors and would CIDB KINDLY arrange with the Govt to provide the fundings to Bumiputra Contractors? AND, PLEASE ....Is there any under-table fees?

Luxurious ‘EXCO Village’ for Selangor Top Guns

2005-03-01T11:50:00.000+08:00

CERMELANG, GEMILANG DAN TEMBERANG

Luxurious ‘exco village’ comes under fire
BY LOONG MENG YEE, THE STAR, PAGE 2, NATION.

The Selangor State Government had spent an estimated MR40 million of public funds to built an “EXCO VILLAGE” in Section 7, Shah Alam comprising bungalows and a clubhouse exclusively for the use of Selangor executive councillors. State Opposition Leader Teng Chang Khim questioned the rationale for the estimated RM40mil project, which comprises 10 bungalows and a clubhouse.

“The state government pays each exco a housing allowance. This payment is more economical than constructing and maintaining the bungalows as the monthly maintenance fee is high,” he said in a press statement yesterday.

As for the clubhouse, he said the excos could become members of the hilltop Kelab Shah Alam by paying RM1,500 monthly.

It is believed that the idea for an “exco village” was mooted last year by the state leadership. The reason was to have a centralised housing area for the councillors, to facilitate easier meeting with each other and the Mentri Besar. They now stay in different locations, some even outside the capital here.

A state official said the bungalows would remain properties of the state. "Most likely, the exco members will lose their monthly housing allowance once they move into the official houses. The state will actually save taxpayers' money because these houses will appreciate in value. We do not have to increase their housing allowances anymore from now,” he said. He said the clubhouse would function as a recreational area and a meeting point; it could even host official events.

It was argued that the bungalows were not extravagant as even district officers and various department heads were given official residences. A survey at the site showed that it is a gated community with a clubhouse right in the centre. Some of the bungalows were fully furnished, complete with bedroom and dining room sets. The gardens had been landscaped as well and workers said the entire “exco village” project had been completed and they were putting the finishing touches.

Is this in compliance with the doctrine of "CERMELANG, GEMILANG, DAN TERBILANG"?

It looks like the government is more towards the doctrine of "TEMBERANG"

Selangor State had decided to increase water tariffs because they could not continue to subsidise the rakyat. But they had no problem to spent multi-millions in building bungalows to appease themselves, plus, paying for trips to watch belly dancers, etc.

Are the rakyat made to look stupid? Did we elect this people to govern us? Oh, my God!!!!!!!

PLANNED TO FAIL - PAYA INDAH WETLANDS

2005-02-24T11:41:00.000+08:00

PAYA INDAH WETLAND PROJECT

NST REPORTS - 24TH. FEBRUARY 2004.

The Paya Indah Wetlands established under a RM32 million development grant from the government was doomed to failure almost from the start. With a balance sheet that showed a monthly income of RM50,000 and operational costs of RM120,000, there was no way that the best of businessmen could have kept it afloat. Its eventual closure was inevitable.

So, why did the Government decided to go ahead with the project while the end results is predictable?

Failure to plan can caused failures. Planning to fail; the closure of Paya Indah Wetland in fact confirm that the plan was a success because it was originally planned to fail. Malaysia Boleh!!!!!!

Kelantan Bridge is Falling Down, Falling Down ...

2005-02-16T11:47:00.000+08:00

Malaysia has 1st. Class Infrastructure?

Hundreds of schoolchildren uses this bridge daily. For umpteen years, residents of Pengkalan Pasir Village, 6km from Kota Baru, Kelantan had been appealing to the authorities for the repair of this bridge. On February 14, 2005, this bridge claimed its second victim. 5-year-old Noralili Mohd Yusof fell into the canal through a gap between the rotten planks. Last year alone, one villager was killed and two others broke their arms and legs.

Perhaps, now the authorities may act.

Didn't we say we have first world infrastructure and third world mentality?
Perhaps, we have both in the third world of darkness.

Water Commission Abandoned

2004-12-17T11:31:00.000+08:00

On May 21st 2004, it was reported that "The government had put on hold the privatization of water supply in some states until a regulatory body to monitor water management is set up.

“I urge on-going privatization schemes to hold on to your horses because without benchmarks, the Government will in the end, be left with something unmanageable,” Dr. Lim Keng Yaik told reporters in KL on the 20th May.

Dead serious about improving the quality of water supply and services in the country, the Government is moving to set up by the end of this year a commission to be the sole regulator of the nation’s multi-billion ringgit water sector.

"We hope to do it by the end of this year," Dr Lim told the New Straits Times (March 3, 2004, NST). "I have to implement the National Water Council decision of last year for the Federal Government to take over the management of water from the States." To facilitate the establishment of the proposed National Water Services Commission, new legislation or even constitutional amendments may be necessary," he said. The proposed commission will oversee water supply and related services in all States except Sabah and Sarawak.

On July 27, as reported in StarBiz, Dr. Lim was reported to say that the Government was not asking for the “impossible” when it asked water operators and independent power producers to renegotiate their terms of agreement under the current structure of its privatisation scheme. Water, Energy and Communications Minister Datuk Seri Dr Lim Keng Yaik said the Government was merely asking the players in these two sectors to consider a new holistic structure in the utilities segment to make it more financially viable. “Many banks have come forward to offer their expertise to finance such projects and this shows that utilities projects are bankable,” he told a seminar in Kuala Lumpur yesterday. The Government was expected to invest RM50bil over the next five years to improve water and sewerage services, he said, adding that the amount was a third of the total to be spent under the 9th Malaysia Plan. He said given the huge investment, it was the ministry’s objective to establish a new model for the utilities sector, which would attract private investment and enable the industry to be self-financing and able to deliver to consumers first-rate service at a reasonable tariff.

On August 6, a group of 15 organization and associations, headed by Selangor Malay Chamber of Commerce and SYABAS Chairman, Tan Sri Rozali Ismail submitted a memorandum, addressed to Prime Minister calling on the Government to speed up the privatisation of water supply, if it had decided to do so. It was handed to Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Datuk Shafie Apdal during a dialogue with the Selangor Malay Chamber of Commerce here today. Tan Sri Rozali Ismail said frequent water supply disruptions, poor water quality, low water pressure and other forms of water supply problems had consistently affected consumers. Among the points raised in the memorandum was that consumers were now having to purchase individual water filters as a result of poor water quality. Another was that consumers do not want to hear continuously about financial difficulties and the hassles of government bureaucracies before any suggested solution is put forward. An example is the setting up of the National Water Commission. The time that would take for it to be set up has been used as an excuse for not implementing remedial works and integrated actions to solve the problems. Another point raised was that inefficient management and planning of water resources had contributed to the increased level of water lost through leaking pipes, burst pipes and rampant illegal supply connections. These are the factors why water is not a revenue earner. Rozali said if immediate steps were not taken to solve the problems, it would be the consumers who would suffer and subsequently their businesses would be affected in many ways. "Consumers are often informed of the problems causing the lack of water supply but they are not being solved," he said.

On the same day, The Star reported that Dr. Lim had gathered a group of industry players to voice their other concerns pertaining to the water privatization scheme. The water industry players have urged the Government to review some of the contracts awarded by some states, saying they are inconsistent with the current plan to centralise water supply operations in the country. They said some of the contracts were only awarded recently, but not through the Economic Planning Unit (EPU), which oversees privatisation projects. “There could be some irregularities in the way certain contracts were awarded and they should be reviewed in the spirit of creating a level playing field for all water industry players,” an executive with one of the companies told StarBiz. Such concerns were voiced by industry players during a series of meetings organised over the past week by the Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications. “Most players in the state are unhappy about how some of the water contracts were unequal with one company enjoying higher rates than the others,” the executive said, adding that in one instance, payments received by a water company from the state government were based on its total capacity rather than its actual production, as was the case with other water firms. The difference in contract pricing, he said, had resulted in a higher water bill for the state water body, Perbadanan Urus Air Selangor Bhd (PUAS), which had to pay for treated water it did not use. In the long run, such contracts would also disadvantage consumers, the executive said.

On December 9, StarBiz reported that the Government has awarded the privatization of the management of water supply operations in Selangor, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya to Puncak Niaga group and Kumpulan Darul Ehsan Bhd.

On December 16, Dr Lim Keng Yaik was reported to say that “Klang Valley’s six million water consumers must be prepared for a 15% tariff hike in a year’s time.

Thus conclude the episode of National Water Services Commission Plan that most likely will not come into fruition, after all the HUHA...

Tan Sri Rozali had won and Dr. Lim can now think of retirement.

For the past many months since the loud proclaimation that the National Water Commission must be set up before the finalization of the water privatization scheme and the firm and unwavering stand of Dr. Lim, I thought, Malaysia now has ONE MINISTER who dares to stand tall and firm and will see his vision through reality. I stood by him, believing that he would not budge, that he is fully convinced that the Water Commission was what we need to resolve the long-term water problem and to set the standards for all other Ministers to Benchmark.

Alas, for whatever reason, either political pressure or self-weakness, the supposedly firm and courageous Minister falls, hard into the garbage bin.

PUAS $1 billion problem is no big deal for the government if they wanted to inject those money into PUAS. The Government can just get EPF to pay by way of issuing Government securities to EPF. So, the excuse that PUAS is in critical and dire straits is paranoid. The truth is, Politcal Maneuvering and Kelptorism.

It concludes that, we actually do not have a man strong enough to stand tall and willing to stretch his neck out, if necessary to be chopped, for the sake of his Vision, Mission and Objectives in the best interest of the Rakyat.

At such, the loser is not keng Yaik, but the Rakyat who will have to pay 15% extra in one year time and thereafter, .....only you can predict the outcome, the price of privatization.

God cannot help those who can't help themselves - the Rakyat!

God certainly help SYABAS ....and it's truely Syabas to Rozali.

"5 Class F Contractor can becomes 1 Big A" says Samy Vellu

2004-12-16T11:35:00.000+08:00

Samy calls 40,000 Class F Contractor to merge into 8,000

Datuk Seri Samy Vellu has suggested that the 40,000-odd Class F contractors merge into about 8,000 companies to bid for major government projects. He said it would be difficult for contracts to be given to individual Class F contractors. “We want to help the Bumiputra contractors but they also need to have vision and merge to get the projects,” Samy said.

I had the opportunity to talk to a few Class F contractors on this matter to see their reaction to the suggestion. The reaction are that:

As Class F contractors, they are short of funds and even if 5 were to merge into 1 as suggested, it would only equal to one bigger poorly financed contractor and they would still be unable to compete with the big boys who had the resources and connections. If 5 of them merge, and try to tender for a big contract, say, Class A or B, (for contracts that are $10 million and above), the performance bond alone would amount to $500,000 for a $10 million contract (5% of contract sum), of which they will not be able to afford. Class F contractors are companies below $10,000 paid up capital and 5 of them will add up to $50,000 paid up (and the paid-up had been fully utilized for setup of office and administration).

It can only be viable merger if the government will waive the performance bond and advance payment bond. That, the Government had to decide if they are absolutely sincere to help the Class F contractors.

Apart from the above issues, the main problems with current Class F contractors is the lack of projects for the 40,000-odd contractors. Big or mega projects are awarded to gaint contractors who would not sublet to Class F contractors due to lack of experience and resources. At such, they had to depend on small projects of which the income from their project will not suffice to cover their expenditure.

If the Government wants the Class F contractors to succeed, there is a need to look into the funding of their operation and providing free training and guidance to them over a period of time so that they will grow in their knowledge and competencies, at the same time, make a little extra money to feed their family, and hopefully, any extra cash leftover, will be used to increase their working capital.

Would the Government be willing to provide the needs of these contractors, or are they going to keep talking and suggesting solutions that are insidious?

Cakap Boleh, Bikin Tak Boleh. 1+1+1+1+1 = 1 Big F

Sarawak Bridge Projects Delayed

2004-12-06T11:37:00.000+08:00

Two bridge projects in Sibu and Lundu have been delayed for far too long.

Works Ministry parliamentary secretary Datuk Yong Khoon Seng said the Government wanted to ascertain the reasons for the delay.

Datuk Seri Samy Vellu will visit and inspect both the RM96 million Durin bridge project in Sibu and the Batang Kayan bridge project in Lundu to find out the causes of the delay.

The Durin project started in 1999 and was supposed to be completed in 2003. The completion date had been extended to December next year (2 years delay???) due to the difficulties of piling works caused by strong river currents.

The Batang Kayan project was supposed to be completed in 2002. It was submitted that the tender price was too low and the contractor could not continue with the project.
Does any of my students knows of or are involved with these projects? Please tell me what happens!

The Third School without roads in Johor Bahru

2004-12-03T11:39:00.000+08:00

SMK Mutiara Rini 2, located near Taman Mutiara Rini in Johor Bahru was supposed to have opened in 2002 was unable to take in students as there was no access road leading to the school. The school has yet to be connected with electricity and water supply. This the the third school in Johor who does not have access road. The other was SMK Tanjung Puteri Resort and SK Tanjung Puteri Resort which had been ready for 3 years. In both the later cases, the developer did not have the funds to build the roads.

Millions had been spent to built schools but are unfit to function.

Did we had a Ministry of Education and is there a Monitoring and Control system within? Or, did they had a Reactive System - i.e., attend to the problem as it arise (or as we receive complaints)?

Pak Lah says the Government will use KPI to measure performance. Does the Government knows:
WHAT to measure, HOW to measure, WHEN to measure, WHERE to measure and WHY measure???

The fundamentals of Performance Measurement System (PMS) is that the design of the performance framework that measures:

what we cannot do,
what we didn't do,
what we won't do, and
what we have yet to do.

The design analysis of the PMS is based on the WHYs of it. It should incorporate the Six Thinking Hats.

It must emcompass the evaluation criteria together with the design of the monitoring and tracking system of:

how we are going to get them (the performance),
when will we get them, and
what is the acceptable level of competency and efficiency.

In essence, it means we measure what was not performed and what that was performed which are below par-excellence, but that which need to be performed to an appropriate level within the system to be successful. It will also deal with the people within the system who consistently fails to achieve them over a period of time which is target-set and predefined by the management. The relative use of Benchmarking is not to set similar standards as your competitor, but to use the competitors performance level as a guide to achieve competitive advantage and sustainability of performance over a predefined period of time, i.e. before your competitors starts to overtake you in your game plan.

The system should also be Dynamic, NOT Static.

The system cannot, and should not be generic in form, that is, you cannot measure everyone with the same criteria - same standard evaluation criteria and same expectation.

Everyone in the company is an asset of different value and cost, acquired at a specific price, to perform a specific level of functions and an expected level of efficiency and competence. An asset (Human Capital) acquired at a low price cannot be expected to performed at the same level of another asset which is acquired at double the price. In another word, we pay for quality and we expect the minimum quality results. Similarly, if we pay peanuts, we should expect monkeys.

At such, the design of any PMS has to be dynamic to ensure fairness and reasonableness, and justify investments in Human Capital Management. At the same time, the system must also provide a channel for the asset (employees) who have the talent, capacity and capability, and the energy to produce performance beyond their current assignment and excel beyond it.

Thus, the dynamic system must have sensors and actuators to capture and recognize these potentials, groom, educate and train these potential people, and provide the necessary infrastructure, tools and techniques that are necessary for them so that they would work their way to achieve excellent results and productivity beyond their assigned level of responsibilities, to an optimum level of performance and productivity.

With this excellent results, it will translate to optimum Return of Investment for the organization and the shareholders, and at the same time, these assets (people) are rewarded accordingly. The appropriate Reward System will motivate the people to continually seek improvement and ensure the organization's sustainable performance and results.

One additional point to note is that, the system must be designed to ensure the appropriate integration of the various functional managers and communication needs that addressed the necessary cooperation and co-working with each other, that which is necessary for the achievement of the ONE Corporate Mission, Goals and Vision.

The Motto is: "Together, We Succeed, Divided, We Fail - and the Competitors WINS!"

PMC puncanya, bukan JKR

2004-11-14T11:10:00.000+08:00

"Dari tahun 1979 saya jadi menteri tidak pernah jadi macam ini''

- KATA DATUK SERI SAMY VELLU.

Utusan Online, 14th November 2004.

Datuk Seri Samy Vellu finally had finally the guts to come out in the open to bare all the viruses and worms that had plague the projects and had infected and infiltrated the whole Kitchen Cabinet.

Who was responsible for all the fiascos of project failures?

According to Samy Vellu, it is none other than the KSU, the Secretary general of the Finance Ministry who is the most powerful person in regards to decisions on project award.

This is what Samy says:

"Tetapi orang yang bertanggungjawab itu ialah Ketua Setiausaha kementeriannya. Ketua Setiausaha saja yang memberi arahan dan dia selalu tidak boleh menerima pandangan lain. Dalam satu-satu mesyuarat kalau ada para pegawai dari JKR untuk menjaga kepentingan teknikal, dia selalu malukan mereka. Dia kata, kalau tidak tahu tutup mulut."

"Beliau sedar bahawa semua masalah itu hanya muncul setelah perkhidmatan Perunding Pengurusan Projek (PMC) diperkenalkan oleh Kementerian Kewangan pada tahun 1990-an."

WHO DECIDES TO SET UP THE PMC?

This is what Samy says:

"Ia ditubuhkan oleh Kementerian Kewangan pada tahun 1990-an. Peranannya ialah untuk memansuhkan projek-projek JKR. Ada kepercayaan bahawa sekiranya projek-projek itu diberikan kepada PMC ia boleh disiapkan dengan lebih awal, lebih cantik dan macam-macam lagi. Malah projek yang mereka siapkan itu sebenarnya lebih mahal."

According to Samy, In the early 1990s, Mahathir's Govt had decided to engage the service of a Project Management Consultant (PMC) which are a composite cartel with faces and looks that resemble a contractor, may look like consultant and had shown interest as property developers and that entity is registered with the Ministry of Finance. The set up of PMC was meant to hijack all JKR's mega projects. It was claimed by the PMC that they are more efficient, more cost effective and can do a better job than JKR. The results speaks of itself: - Computer lab projects, Matrade Building, Hospital Sultan Ismail di Pandan, Johor, Kangar Hospital, Cameron Hospital, Langkawi School projects, et al; all these projects are now reverted back to JKR for reorganization and restructuring - to mitigate the damages done, and the multi million loses incurred; all tax-payers money.

As revealed by Samy, the PMC is a private entity who had only 2 officers manning the company - a managing director and a deputy managing director, and NO others. The Government, via the Ministry of Finance had entrusted and delegated the power to this PMC to appoint and select any contractors, design engineers, consultants, and nominated sub-contractors for all projects parked within their jurisdiction or those within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance.

Snip from the interview:

Q: "Sebenarnya apabila Kementerian Kewangan sudah memberikan sesuatu projek itu kepada sesebuah kontraktor, tanggungjawab saya sebagai menteri hanyalah mengarahkan JKR supaya melantik kontraktor itu. Saya memberikan kuasa kepada Ketua Pengarah JKR untuk melantik kontraktor itu untuk harga yang telah ditentukan. Itu saja.

Ini bermakna Kementerian Kewangan mempunyai kuasa yang lebih besar walaupun Kementerian Kerja Raya mempunyai pakar yang boleh memberikan nasihat?"

SAMY REPLIED: YA, BETUL.

Q: Siapakah yang memeriksa PMC?

SAMY: TIADA SIAPA. (believe it? NObody manages or control or audit the PMC!!!)

Q: Kerajaan ada JKR tetapi kenapakah kerajaan memilih untuk memberi kepercayaan kepada badan swasta mengendalikan projek yang bernilai berjuta-juta ringgit? Apakah rasionalnya?

SAMY: Ada satu jawapan saja kepada soalan ini. Kata mereka, kerja-kerja itu boleh disiapkan dalam jangka masa yang cepat.

Q: Tanpa mempedulikan soal kos?

SAMY: Ya, tanpa mempedulikan kos. Apabila JKR membuka tawaran bagi setiap bilik darjah dengan harga RM55,000, ada juga pemaju yang bersedia menyiapkannya. Tetapi sebuah bilik darjah yang ditawarkan melalui PMC ada yang berharga RM95,000 dan ada juga yang mencecah sehingga RM120,000.

Kosnya sekarang sudah jadi berganda. Apabila kita tanya kenapa harganya jadi begitu tinggi mereka nanti akan beri berbagai-bagai penjelasan.

Sekolah-sekolah yang dibina dengan harga yang tinggi itu memang cantik-cantik. Tetapi siapa yang hilang wang? Kerajaan.

Q: Adakah pemaju-pemaju itu dapat menyiapkan projek-projek berkenaan dengan cepat seperti yang dijanjikan?

SAMY: Tidak juga. Ada sekali itu JKR telah diminta supaya mengeluarkan satu tawaran untuk pembinaan 500 buah sekolah dan kita sudah memilih lebih daripada 200 pemaju untuk melaksanakannya.

Tetapi apabila sampai masa kita hendak mengeluarkan surat niat, JKR telah diminta supaya menarik balik semua tawaran itu dan menyerahkannya kepada PMC. Semudah itu saja.

Q: Apa yang istimewanya tentang PMC ini?

SAMY: PMC LEBIH KUAT DARIPADA KITA.

Believe what you hear from Samy? PMC is stronger than Ministry of Works?

Is this the Government we had? That even the MINISTRY can be overruled by a PMC?

How is it that this can happen?
How is it that the Government had developed a dinosaur from a lizard within such a short span of a few years that is capable to destroy the Works Ministry and billions of dollars of project?
Who is behind the PMC?
Who's the GODFATHER behind it?
It cannot be the Jews?
Only UNMO can answer it; TRUST me!

PWD instructed to manage Matrade Building to Completion

2004-11-11T11:15:00.000+08:00

PWD: "YOU MANAGE MATRADE BUILDING"

PWD DIRECTED TO COMPLETE MATRADE BUILDING WITHIN 21 MONTHS.

On problems affecting the Malaysian External Trade and development Authority building in Jalan Duta, Samy Vellu said the contract was not awarded by the PWD. The contract had been given to Syarikat Perangsang International Sdn Bhd and it had been refusing to allow PWD officials into the project since the first day.

Now, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has directed PWD to complete and handover the building within 21 months from the date of receiving the funds from the Government. Why? It took 10 years for the Ministry of Finance to get the project to its current state of affairs and PWD is only given 21 months to finished up the mess? I believe, it must had been a promised made by the Director-General of PWD Tan Sri Zaini who had requested RM32 million from the Treasury for PWD to complete the project. Is 21 months & RM32 million sufficient to get the project completed? I hope it does; if not, Zaini will have to burn his ass to answer for it.

During the meeting attended by PAC, the Board of Architects and the PWD represented by Tan Sri Zaini, PWD promised to take legal action against the errant contractor and recover some of the losses. What???? PWD to take legal action? Samy Vellu said the contract is not awarded by PWD; how then can they take legal action against the errant contractor? Is Samy Vellu and Zaini talking about the same subject and same contract? According to Samy, Matrade was not awarded by PWD; then how can PWD take legal contractual action? Are our Ministers and D-G going NUTs? or, are they misleading us??? Please clarify!!!!!! My God, Please sent Tan Sri Zaini back to law school!!!!!

Is Privatising PUAS Viable?

2004-11-04T11:22:00.000+08:00

PUAS Dilemma

Urgent Need to solve water woes in Selangor

Refering to the NST article posted by AS Toh & LCC in the Letter to the Editor on November 4, 2004 pertaining to the problems besetting PUAS and the Selangor water woes, it had been suggested by the author that as a temporary solution, the Government should:

1) Continue to put on hold water supply privatization deals;
2) Federal Government to provide soft loans or grants to the Selangor State Government to tide over the difficult period until a permanent solution is found; &
3) Increase immediately tariff not by 2 to 4 sen but by 20% to 40% as required.

The proposal was meant to be temporary until a permanent solution is found; according to the author.

The Poser is:

What is temporary? When will the permanent solution be found?

The problems of PUAS was known and discussed within the government for more than 10 years and many solutions were forwarded and implemented including the increase of water tariff. Did the solution solve the problem - NAYs! Why??? Because the problem of financial losses and debts was not the root of the problem. Then, what was the root of the problem?

Firstly, the problem arises due to water shortages. This was a direct result of the failure to plan for the need of the State in the blueprint. 20 years ago, there had already been a proposal to built the pipeline to deliver water from Pahang to Selangor. The proposed project to be funded by the Japanese was put on hold primarily for reason of financial constraint and priority. But we spent billions to built Twin-Tower, KLIA, Putrajaya, Cyberjaya, and many highways around the country which would had been construed to be more important than the water project. PUAS CEO Datuk Mohd Sinon Mudzakir had repeated mourn publicly that "The Inter-State Water Transfer Scheme needs to be realised urgently or Malaysians will face a water crisis in 4 years. A system allowing water to be delivered to States lacking in the resource needs to be in place. There will be a crisis by 2008 if it is not implemented quickly,” Did anyone in the Cabinet respond to his SOS call? The respond by Dr Lim Keng Yaik was blinker-focussed on the privatization of the whole water management services but will never address the supply-side which ultimately will surface soon, maybe in 3-4 years time, as projected by PUAS CEO. Looking at the perspective of solution-making, the Government will not solve the water problem until the long-term needs of water for the State was addressed with a long term solution; but the State Government had implemented many other solutions. They privatized the treatment of water to various companies and the contract price was a fortune to the consortium as acknowledged by PUAS. Apart from the pricing, the methodology of billing and metering the quantities of treated water was far too advantages to the consortium. What it meant is that the consortium will be paid for all the water that leaves the treatment plant but PUAS will receive revenue for what was actually delivered and consumed by household and industry. The pilferage and wastages in-between the 2-point of measurement is borned solely by PUAS. And, if you (Consortium) bill me (PUAS) 1 gallon of water at treatment plant out-point valve and meter, how do I check and confirm that it was actually 1 gallon - i.e. what is the Control System and how do we audit? Are you sure the current system is adequate and sufficient to ensure nobody can abuse the current recording system of delivery?

Apart from that, who is responsible for the pipeline and the leakages? We privatized the meat but left the bones for PUAS to chew and expect them to survive? PUAS didn't and so the next course of action is: THE PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE WATER TARIFF TO COMPENSATE OR TO OFF-SET THE LOSSES. So, who was made to pay? The Rakyat!

The water tariff in Selangor is $0.57 for domestic and $1.80 for commercial. For domestic water tariff, Johor is $0.38, Perak is $0.30, Pahang is $0.37, Kedah is $0.40 and Penang is $0.22. For commercial tariff, Selangor is $1.80, Johor is $2.22, Perak is $1.20, Pahang is $0.92, Kedah is $1.20 and Penang is $0.52. And Penang JBA is making a sound profit. From figures above, Selangor is non-competitive and the question arises should be - WHY??? Is it due to poor management, high cost of poor quality, wastages, inefficiencies, ineffective policies, poor or no proper control system, poor maintenance management system, high cost of overhead, et al. Had the Government start pondering the above questions SINCERELY & TRUTHFULLY? There are many things known but not spoken publicly and those comments come from the sources within the system itself. Kleptorism was within but the issue was : It was actually desired!

ON PRIVATIZATION

Withholding privatization is not the answer. Privatization is a certainty but the National Water Commission must be setup and are fully equipped and operational to Man & Manage the system, i.e to PLAN, EXECUTE & MONITOR AND CONTROL the complete water supply and delivery services and includes the maintenance and repair management framework and that the system had considered the needs for the next few decades; otherwise, the solution to the problem begets new and more deadly problems.

ON WATER TARIFF INCREASE

Increase of water tariff by 20 to 40% will burden the rakyat and the consequences had to be considered thoroughly and wisely. The Hypothesis issue is: The consumer is made to pay for systemic failure, cost of poor quality, inefficiency and kleptorism.

ON SOFT LOAN FROM FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Providing soft loans to PUAS is not the answer. It's is TINKERING with the problem. Give them $2 billion today and in 6 months time they will be broke again, and shall need another $2 billion injection.

Khazanah owns so many corporations, are cash rich, and were supposedly great and efficient managers. Why doesn't the Government consider a test on the management of Khazanah by privatizing the system (without tariff increase at least for the next 5-years) as a whole to Khazanah and find out how good the management are? Are they afraid to take the challenge and prefer to invest in safe and secured investments?

Petronas, another super-tycoon and had investments in so many sectors such as energy, should be considered to accept the responsibility of water management, which is also ENERGY BUSINESS. Their success is gains from raping Mother Nature, and water is Mother Nature too. Why are they allowed to suck black gold and not white gold? Even if they had to subsidies water from the gains from black gold, both assets of Mother Nature, isn't it fair?

The paradox is: Profitable business, I manage, complex, less profitable and high probability of loss business, you manage - that's what GLCs are about. And they claim they are great managers - MY FOOT!

Another PARADOXICAL THESIS: Since Penang water management had proven to be successful and efficient, why not bring the team of managers including their CEO to PUAS and let them turnaround the organization? I'm certain, they will succeed!

Policy-makers, planners and implementers would be wise to take heed of the recommendations contained in the National Water Resources Study (NWRS) plan which was submitted and accepted by the Government. The Government cannot plead innocence any more, if somehow, somewhere, the rakyat suffer from water shortages. A lot is at stake.

POS SLIM Highway is Dangerous

2004-11-04T11:18:00.000+08:00

"POS SLIM HIGHWAY DANGEROUS," says Samy Vellu

PWD PERAK REFUSED TO ISSUE CF ON SAFETY OF HIGHWAY, BUT......

The Simpang Pulai-Cameron Highlands stretch of the East-West Highway will be closed daily after sunset until further notice. The closure was ordered by the Cabinet today after engineers recently found that the stretch was too dangerous for motorists. It was earlier reported that water had seeped into the slopes along the highway and some movement had been detected, especially between Pos Slim and Kampung Raja. Samy Vellu had also said that there was some movement of between 0.3m and 0.45m.

On the 4th Feb 2004, The Star reported that the 282mil highway from Pos Slim to Kampung Raja in Cameron Highlands is completed but PWD has refused to issue a safety certification for the road. The PWD feels that it’s dangerous for use as km22.5 and 25.5 is too steep and prone to landslides. The slope gradient was not constructed in accordance to the PWD standard. The PWD is of the opinion that the construction has not met its requirement.

On 17th October 2004, The Star again reported a statement from the State Director of Perak PWD, Datuk Dorairaju. “We know the road was not really completed when we opened it in February. It was opened after pressure from the people in Cameron Highlands who were affected by a landslide near Ringlet,” commented Datuk Dorairajoo.

According to Samy Vellu, the Works Ministry was considering closing the highway in order to facilitate the construction of a proposed new tunnel which will be 1.5km long. The tunnel is expected to cost between $30-50million.

QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE ASKED:

Why was the tunnel not designed and built by the earlier Turnkey Contractor?

Is it a question of design omission, or a failure of the PMC & design consultants to take into consideration the fundamental requirements during the earlier contract?

Is there a Failure of Duty of Care, Professional Negligence and can TORT actions be taken? Or, did the Turnkey contractor failed to comply to the requirements stipulated in the Need Statement of the contract?

The project was a Design-Built-Lump Sum contract from point A to point B (as per the need statement from PWD).

How could it be that we now say we will need a tunnel when the designers had not deemed necessary at the point of the contract been made?

Was the designer over-ruled?

Did the contractor short-change the Government?

PWD and Works Ministry had to answer it point blank and not hide behind the maxim of Act-of-God again. Infact, ACA should be as pro-active as they had been with the Karak Highway investigation, by investigating this problem.

Coincidently, both the problematic highway (Simpang Pulai- Kampung Raja and Karak Highway) were constructed TURNKEYED by MTD Capital.

The problem that have surfaced now and more to come in the future was predictable and known-knowns. It is just that our Ministers choose to side-step the issues that were raised before it happen (before the contract formation), and hope it doesn't happen (after the contract completion). JKR Perak knew of the problem. They couldn't talk out loud as they may lose their job and income.

Well, Murphy's Law again: If you think it can happen, It will happen! & The solution to a problem breeds new and more virulent problems. Problem begets problem. Inefficiency breeds inefficiency.

Datuk Seri Samy should admit his delinquency and work towards an effective solutions, even if it has to be painful to vindicate himself. He should not be shielding incompetencies and the incompetent contractors. He must wake up, and for once, solve those problems he had allowed to happen when he concurred on those decisions with his fello cabinet ministers, of which he shall have to accept responsibility and the consequences for the last 20 years of folly and political patronage.

16 School & 5 Colleges Defective

2004-11-02T11:25:00.000+08:00

16 Schools & 5 Colleges Defective - All built by same contractor

16 Schools and 5 Community Colleges constructed by Project Management Consultant (PMC) a construction company appointed by the Finance Ministry have serious structural defects and PM had directed PWD to take over the buildings and prepare a complete report on the matter.

“Now we have to find out who is the contractor, who is PMC and who is the consulting engineer,” says Datuk Seri Samy Vellu.

How could it happen? Isn't the contractor a registered PKK Class 'A' entity accredited by the relevant authority presumably based on their qualification and competency and that the selection process had taken into consideration the fundamental requirements of a competent contractor? Or, is the selection based on political intention with the necessary mens rea?

Murphy's Law has always been proven right. What you think can happen, would happen.
To most of the industry players and project management professionals, it was known-knowns and it's a matter of time for these failures to unfold; the only regret is that it is the tax-payers money that was dumped into the incinerator.

Which Ministry is responsible? Who would be made accountable?

For me, the nostalgia is that the company chose a name PMC which should reflect their true project management competency and ability but sad to note, it brought injustice to the project management fratenity.

The most shameful part is that the MOF, MOE and probably, PWD are made to look as if they don't even understand what is project management and what is construction management.

Worst off is, Pusat Khidmat Kontraktor (PKK) who are delegated by legislature to accredit and rank those contractors (by meritocracy) don't even have the basic knowledge and competencies of engineering and construction technology to evaluate the skills and competencies required of a contractor. This goes the same for CIDB. I wonder when the PM would start taking a look at CIDB and see the worms roaming around in India and Sri Lanka, performing the role of a contractor instead of the role of promoting and developing the construction industry, and regulating and monitoring the industry's performance and key indices. When will we do the right thing and when will it happen? Where is the institution that will do the right job? How is the hundreds of millions collected by CIDB been utilized? Will there be transparency and accountability? Who cares and who is going to care? Will Pak-Lah wake up?

$500,000 TOILET that Nobody shit

2004-11-01T11:28:00.000+08:00

Toilet built at $500,000 & now a ghost home

A Thai-style public toilet sited at the Manjalera Lake Garden in Kepong, KL was designed to be so lavish that it would cost RM500,000.

The toilet had been furbished with imported ceramics tiles, marble-top basins and amenities normally linked with 5-star hotels. It include imported decorative lights from Spain.

A staff member at the contractor’s office said the facility was almost complete but had yet to be handed over to the Park Management as the fixing of the decorative lights from Spain had not yet done because of short supply.

The toilet is now more than 2 years under construction and has become a living quarter for some illegal foreign workers.

The RM98 million hospital project in Cameron Highland was a 2-year project and was now 5 months delayed with expectations that it will need another 6 months to complete. The Works Ministry had terminated the contractor's contract.

"But the toilet project is also 2-years (worth only $500,000) and they are not being terminated yet," Mercu Jaya cried foul. The RM 176 million Matrade project is 10-years since, and they are not terminated? The Simpang Pulai- Ayer Raja highway was completed in more than 7 years and they were not terminated? Does the Ministry had a standard criteria for termination or they do it as they deemed fit. It looks like you had to be a political crony to stay in business.

Fungi Problem in JB Hospital

2004-10-21T11:06:00.000+08:00

MINISTERS TRAPPED BY FUNGUS INFECTION

1) SAMY VELLU BLAMES HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT

2) CHUA SOI LEK BLAMES PWD

According to Samy Vellu, the fungus problem at the new $557.8 million Sultan Ismail Hospital in JB was caused by the failure of the hospital management to undertake routine maintenance but Health Minister thinks that the problem was due to structural defects.

The hospital was supposed to be completed on July 29, 2002, but 3-extensions were given due to various problems and was only completed on Nov 14, 2003 and handed over to the PWD on Feb 15, 2004. The Health Ministry took over from the PWD on March 2004 and appointed Pantai Medivest Sdn Bhd to oversee daily maintenance and monitoring of the building supervisory systems, reporting defects and damage to the main contractor. “There was no daily routine checks on the hospital due to lack of staff. The presence of the fungus on the 2nd and 3rd Level of the hospital was due to damage to the air-conditioner valve, which was not reported as there was no building supervisory system,” said Samy Vellu.

However, Dr. Chua said the fungus problem was due to structural defects and not due to delay in routine maintenance. In dismissing Samy Vellu’s report as “Defective” Dr Chua said the fungus was caused by the dampness in the hospital following leakage in its major roof and low human traffic.

“The roof was like a big retention pond,” said Dr Chua. “We (Health Ministry) received the hospital in good faith on March 15 this year but it was full of defects. Besides major leaking problems, there were also problems in the piping system which had affected gas flow and also problem in the sewerage. The problems were made known to the contractor, who had promised to rectify them but did not do so,” Dr Chua said yesterday.

So, who was right and who is wrong????

Actually, both Ministers are right!

Hospital management must make routine inspections and if the air-conditioning valve was damaged and unreported (as claimed by Samy), definitely, it will cause dampness and ultimately leads to fungi growth - SO, SAMY WAS RIGHT! Hurray Uncle Sam.... but.....

Well, at the same time, the roof was a retention pond, there were major leaking problems, piping problems, and sewerage system failures of which the promised restification was not done timely, as claimed by Chua Soi Lek - THEREFORE Dr Chua IS ALSO RIGHT! Yahooooo......but.......

THEN, who is WRONG? Who is the CULPRIT? Is it the CONTRACTOR (MH Project Sdn Bhd) or the HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE PROVIDER (Pantai Medivest Sdn Bhd)?

Ironically, both Ministries would not look into the contractual aspects related to the problem. The question arises are:

1) If the health Ministry was not happy with the conditions of the facility of which it was alleged that the works are not conforming to the specifications and standards, then why did they willingly, take over the building? GOOoood FAITHhhhh? Now, it's bad BLOOooooD!

2) If the roof is like a retention pond, (as claimed by Dr Chua), and is leaking badly, it is amusing that PWD had issued a Certificate of Completion (CPC) to the contractor ....... that's professional negligence on the part of PWD engineers.

3) Since taking over the facility by the Health Ministry, how is it contractually managed with regard to Defects Management and the contractual communication related to the Defects Liability Period of the contractor? And how is it that the line of communication seemed to be that the Health Ministry was talking and liaising directly with the main contractor which is not what the contract stipulates - i.e, the contract requires the Superintendent Officer (S.O.) to issue instruction to the main contractor for defects rectification during the defects liability period and failure to respond timely by the contractor, the contract does provide the S.O. to engage others to carry out the work and the cost incurred shall be debited to the contractor. At such, the question that the contractor did not respond to the Health Ministry's Instruction did not arise as the contractor need not take instruction from the Ministry except from the S.O.

In conclusion, the allegation against the contractor is mala fide. The contractor may have done a bad job, but since the employer (i.e. JKR) had accepted the works and issued the CPC, the contractor's responsibility is presumed to have been fulfilled if they did not receive any instructions from the S.O. to make good any defects; and the contractor cannot be held responsible for the damages arising thereof. Morally and socially, the contractor maybe the cause or the contributor to the problem but contractually, he is absolved of the responsibility if the failure on the part of the S.O. to give the necessary instruction did not take place.

Since the Health Ministry had decided to be friendly, and .... have GOOoooD FAITHhhhhh, and had INFACT, contractually accepted to take over the facility, then, they had taken over the contractual responsibility to manage the building and it's associated services; and they must be held fully responsible - for their actions and their decisions. In that sense, when the service management contractor was appointed to manage the building, how could they claimed that it was not their fault that they did nothing except to wait for the main contractor to rectify the defects, which in reality, they should be taking proactive actions to ensure that the building and its services are functioning in accordance with the operation definition. Where is the "Duty of Care" & "Reasonableness" ?????

A Contract is a Contract; Nothing More, Nothing Less!

Every party to the contract must know their role and responsibilities as laid down in the terms and conditions of contract. Every party to a contract must understand their "Rights" and their "Obligations". Each party must also know of the associated risks they will face and the consequences of their decisions and actions that lead to the risk that had happen. Even among the Ministries, there is an unwritten contract of "Duty of Care" and a "Duty to the Rakyat" for spending $558 million on a facility that is malfunctioning and would not serve it's objectives.

The same goes to the Highway problems (MRR2), East-coast Karak Highway shambles, The Langkawi "White Elephants" Schools, and the Matrade Building Debacle. Infact, there are many more systemic failures in Government projects ... computer lab fiascos, PUAS fiascos, Simpang Pulai - Kampung Raja Sloppy slope design (awaiting failures), Gemas Army Barrack project & payment fiascos, Gua Musang- Lojing Highway Slope failing (awaiting failure), Broga landfill project fiascos, et al.

More of these bad news will surface soon and probably, Pak-Lah who had directed the Sports Ministry to form a Cabinet Committee for sports revitalization may also have to form another Cabinet Committee and Advisory Panel to manage the Government Project Management System. The Sports Committee headed by Azalina engaged Hallam Pereira to tell her what our sports officials had already told her predecessors; and so, the Government Project Management committee may also need a foreign consultant to tell them what we local professionals had already known and widely spoken and discussed within the project management community. Is that the Government's way of SOLUTION MANAGEMENT - i.e engage Foreign Consultant, pay through your nose and get a "BLUEPRINT" of our known problems and known solutions and then ARCHIVED the file. IMPLEMENTATION? NAY, NAY, NAY .....oh NO NO NOooooo!!!!!
CAKAP TAK SERUPA BIKIN - MALAYSIA BOLEH LAGI.

Ailing Klang Hospital - No Maintenance Framework

2004-09-14T11:04:00.000+08:00

POOR MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT OR NO Maintenance Management?

HOSPITAL WOES

DO WE HAVE PROPER MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT OF HOSPITALS
OR WE ONLY CARRY OUT DEFECTS & RECTIFICATION MANAGEMENT AS THEY OCCUR?

The Star Front-page: Ailing Hospital:
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004

Services at the Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Hospital in Klang, which has the country's second busiest emergency ward, have been badly hit by faulty air-conditioning. All elective surgeries have been postponed at the hospital, which schedules about 20 such operations daily.

A doctor claimed that the air-conditioning system had broken down “a few hundred” times over the past two years in different units, with some breakdowns lasting from a few hours to eight days.

“Sometimes, they happen a few times a day. We have the records to prove this."

Hospital deputy director Dr Ismail Mohd Yusoff said he had done his best by bringing the problem up with the authorities. “The Cabinet and the highest level in the Health Ministry know about our plight. “Many say they empathise with us, but we are still waiting for the funding,” he said.

Pak Lah had just delivered his budget and we wonder whether the state of affairs in hospitals had been addressed in the prevailing budget.

Often, we read of budget that projects the prospective future but rarely address the problems that we had been facing, such as the Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Hospital in Klang. This is not the only hospital that is facing the problem of poor maintenance management system. Many government buildings and facilities are also in dire straits.

The question arise:

"Do we have an effective Hospital & Public Facility Maintenance Management System in place or do the government and local authorities manage maintenance as and when the problem arises? Its ironical to hear from THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR of the hospital that the Cabinet and the Health Ministry had been informed of the critical problems that had existed for so many years and that they had known of the problem and are empathetic towards the hospital staffs but are waiting for the fundings. If thats the case, then what is the yearly budget trying to address? The government spent tens of billions each year on building highways and roads and are proposing to spent a few more billions on Penang Second Bridge but what about the maintenance of all existing government facilities and buildings?

Isn't this SYSTEMIC FAILURE????
CAKAP TAK SERUPA BIKIN.

Developers have to deposit 40% of Project Cost

2004-08-30T10:54:00.000+08:00

Khir Toyo: Developers have to deposit 40% of Project Cost

ARE YOU REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT IT - THAT IS TO INSIST THAT DEVELOPERS HAVE TO DEPOSIT 40% PROJECT COST IN A BANK AS PERFORMANCE BOND, OR ARE YOU CAKAP SIA SIA SAHAJA?

To ensure that housing projects are not abandoned, Selangor wants developers to put 40% of the overall development cost in a bank before land conversion is carried out.

Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Khir Toyo said the 40% was based on past situations where projects were abandoned with 30% to 40% yet to be completed.

He said the requirement was to protect the interest of potential house and commercial property buyers.

“Forty percent is a justifiable amount. The requirement is based on the 36 abandoned projects in the state which had been left idle with 30 to 40% yet to be completed."

“With the 40% in the financial institution, it would act as a surety to ensure that the project is completed."

“With this mechanism we feel it would give birth to developers with excellence,” he said.

He said the state would also put a stop to the unscrupulous method of developers who used the buyer’s initial and progress payments to push through a housing project to rake in the profits upon completion.

Dear MB, its a fantastic idea!!!! But do you & your EXCO members have the balls to implement that requirement or you are just poking pointers at some developers so that they come running to you and your EXCOs to negotiate at the mamak stall?

I'm sure REDHA will be horning loud in the next few days and Ong Kah Ting will speak in tongue soon. lets wait for more!!!!!

A New Kampung Baru Proposal

2004-08-27T10:56:00.000+08:00

KAMPUNG BARU OR KOTA RAYA BARU?

A group of influential Kampung Baru residents has proposed that a statutory body be set up to develop the settlement, one of the largest undeveloped real estate left in the city. They have drawn up plans to be submitted to the Government that the agency, modelled after the Putrajaya Corporation, handle matters such as land acquisition and compensation to residents was the only way to satisfy all parties.

The agency will act as the middleman. Previously any attempts to develop included a third party who had an interest.

“We are going to suggest that the Government sets up an agency, which paid compensation and had the right to develop the area. Redevelopment will be done in blocks or precincts,” said a source.

The initiative is headed by Titiwangsa MP Datuk Astaman Abdul Aziz.

However, the status of Kampung Baru, as a Malay Agriculture Settlement, must be repealed if any redevelopment was to take place on the 90ha village.

The development until now could not be done because the people could not be paid the amount they were asking for, which was anything between RM250 and RM500 per sq ft.

“Since it is Malay Agriculture Settlement land, it cannot be owned, transferred or occupied by non-Malays. There are existing bylaws where buildings cannot be more than five floors and compensation will be very low compared to commercial land.” Under the proposal, the residents will not be paid 100% in cash.

“We want to avoid a situation where we give them money and they end up spending it all without saving. We will suggest giving them financial instruments such as bonds, where they will get houses once a precinct is completed,” the source said.

The interesting point to NOTE:

The clergy and those wisemen who are proposing the project development are saying that the Kampung Baru people don't have ability to take care of themselves and at such, they need a body managed by the clergy, to control their monies, how they spent the money, when to spent, what to spent and at what proportion it will be given to them. If you are one of the land owner in Kg Baru, how do you feel? Isn't this statement a contempt; a total disrespect to the people of Kampung Baru?

The people in Kampung Baru are not stupid as make out to be. If you take a good look at the quality of their houses and the way of life, their entrepreneurship ability, you will know that they are doing reasonably well because they are wise and frugal. It is those businessmen who are eyeing Kg. Baru development that will benefit themselves first, and they are looking into ways of a reduced working capital, a longer period of payment of compensation and the creative methods of financing their project with lesser capital by paying the compensation in bonds, stocks, debentures, warrants, deferred payment, etc. At such, they have to camouflage their intend by pronouncing their concern of how the money will be spent on behalf of the interest of the people in Kg Baru.

There's a saying of these clergies:

DI DEPAN KEDAI,KEPALA RUSA DI GANTUNG,
TETAPI SE BENARNYA, YANG DI JUAL ADALAH DAGING ANGING."

MALAYSIA BOLEH .... tipu!

WATER PRIVATIZATION - THE WAR BEGINS

2004-08-08T11:00:00.000+08:00

Water privatization

PUNCAK NIAGA BEGINS WAR WITH LIM KENG YAIK

75,000 ROZALI'S STAKEHOLDERS WITH INTER-RELATED INTERESTS & PERSONAL INTERESTS CONSPIRED UNDER THE BANNER OF SELANGOR MALAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (OF WHICH ROZALI IS THE PRESIDENT), SENT A MEMO TO PM TO SPEED UP WATER PRIVATIZATION AWARD TO SYABAS-PUNCAK NIAGA IN THE PRETEXT OF THE WATER WOES FACED BY SELANGOR RESIDENTS.

The memorandum, addressed to Prime Minister called on the Government to speed up the privatisation of water supply, if it had decided to do so.

It was handed to Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Datuk Shafie Apdal during a dialogue with the Selangor Malay Chamber of Commerce here today.

The signatures were collected by a group of 15 organisations and associations who largey comprises his cronies, his consultants for the target project and his probable sub-contractors and suppliers, and probably his staffs and includes those others related.

Chamber president Tan Sri Rozali Ismail said frequent water supply disruptions, poor water quality, low water pressure and other forms of water supply problems had consistently affected consumers. Among the points raised in the memorandum was that consumers were now having to purchase individual water filters as a result of poor water quality. Another was that consumers do not want to hear continuously about financial difficulties and the hassles of government bureaucracies before any suggested solution is put forward. An example is the setting up of the National Water Commission. The time that would take for it to be set up has been used as an excuse for not implementing remedial works and integrated actions to solve the problems. Another point raised was that inefficient management and planning of water resources had contributed to the increased level of water lost through leaking pipes, burst pipes and rampant illegal supply connections. These are the factors why water is not a revenue earner. Rozali said if immediate steps were not taken to solve the problems, it would be the consumers who would suffer and subsequently their businesses would be affected in many ways. "Consumers are often informed of the problems causing the lack of water supply but they are not being solved," he said.

LIM KENG YAIK WAS EQUALLY QUICK & WITTY. HE TOO CALLED FOR A MEETING WITH INDUSTRY PLAYERS AT HIS MINISTRY.

In that meeting, it was reported that water industry players have urged the Government to review some of the contracts awarded by some states, saying they are inconsistent with the current plan to centralise water supply operations in the country. They said some of the contracts were only awarded recently, but not through the Economic Planning Unit (EPU), which oversees privatisation projects.

“There could be some irregularities in the way certain contracts were awarded and they should be reviewed in the spirit of creating a level playing field for all water industry players,” an executive with one of the companies told StarBiz.

Such concerns were voiced by industry players during a series of meetings organised over the past week by the Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications.

“Most players in the state are unhappy about how some of the water contracts were unequal with one company enjoying higher rates than the others,” the executive said, adding that in one instance, payments received by a water company from the state government were based on its total capacity rather than its actual production, as was the case with other water firms. The difference in contract pricing, he said, had resulted in a higher water bill for the state water body, Perbadanan Urus Air Selangor Bhd (PUAS), which had to pay for treated water it did not use. In the long run, such contracts would also disadvantage consumers, the executive said.

EPILOGUE:

It can be clearly seen that Tan Sri Rozali is getting impatient and sense that he and his Puncak Niaga will not have an easy time with Lim Keng Yaik as regard to the price he wants and the profit that was presumably assured by the Mahathir's regime. So, before the National Water Commission gets to the parliment for approval, he abused his position in the Selangor Malay Chamber of Commerce by selectively organizing his group of cronies and stake-related-holders to present a Memo to the Prime Minister in an effort to apply communal political pressure under the disguise of the interest of Malay Chamber of Commerce and the selective Malays in general, to discredit Lim Keng Yaik and forced him to back-off or they would trash him into pieces.

God forbid if Rozali ever managed to get his way, it will spell the death of democracy and meritocracy, which is the core integrity of Badawi's government. The game is getting insidious and they are treading the line of communalisim and exclusivism. My wonder is: "Was it the intent of the privatization deal made by Mahathir, to be on communal basis and is Rozali representing the Malay chamber of commerce and the malays as a whole?

When it comes to money and the get-rich quick national-economic-scheme, you will see the declared public angel unweils his devilish fangs.

I hope the nation gets behind Keng Yaik to thwart-off the schemers. We can never find another brave man in the likes of Keng Yaik, who had the absolute courage to stand by the right principles and who isn't afraid to lose his neck which is out-stretched to the limit in order to protect and uphold the Rakyats' interests and in exposing the national robber barons.

KENG YAIK BOLEH & WE HOPE PAK-LAH WILL SUPPORT YOU!

Open Tender with Special Award of Projects

2004-07-17T10:44:00.000+08:00

SAYING IS BELIEVING?

On 14th. January 2004, Pak Lah said, "The majority of Government contracts will be decided through open tender in line with on-going efforts to increase transparency, lower the cost of doing business and reduce the possibility of corruption."

The Prime Minister said only “Special Cases” would be dealth through direct negotiations. However he did not disclose the criteria for these “Special Cases”.

On 9th. June 2004, Second Finance Minister told the Dewan Rakyat that, " Bumiputera contractors can still get contracts through special tenders as not all are tendered through the open system,”

According to Nor Yakcop, this showed that the interests of Bumiputera contractors had not been overlooked.

1.) Open tender in line with on-going efforts to increase transparency, lower the cost of doing business and reduce the possibility of corruption?????

2.) Bumiputera contractors can still get contracts through special tenders in order that the interests of Bumiputera contractors will not been overlooked???

The two just don't gist if put together. Do they know what they are talking about? Or, is Nor Yakcop playing music to the ears of UMNO politicians?

Ting Pek King was just awarded a contract for $620 million to expand the Kuching Airport. Tan Sri Rozali Ismail of Puncak Niaga and Syarikat bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd (SYABAS) will be getting the water privatization project worth multi billions ringgit and the taxpayers will have to bear with the propose increase in water tariff of about 45% as proposed by SYABAS.

"Is this called lowering the cost of business by way of passing the increased cost to consumers?"

Perwaja Steel problems of multi billion ringgit losses, billions of loses during Tan Sri Eric Chia's tenure and more loses uncovered after Maju Holding had taken over; all of these are to be absorbed by the tax payers - who is responsible to make good????? Efficiency, High Performance, Clean Govt., Cekap, Bersih dan Amanah, Cermelang, Gemilang dan Terbilang - the motto of our system???????

Oh, Ho, Ho, Ho, Santa Claus Management!

Rural Road Projects - No need for PMC

2004-07-16T10:48:00.000+08:00

The Government will do away with rural road project consultants and use the allocation set aside for consultant fees to build more roads, Rural and Regional Development Minister Datuk Aziz Samsuddin said. He said the decision to stop the appointment of consultants was made this year and the RM30mil in consultant fees saved would be used to build 320km of rural roads. “I don’t see the need to have consultants to build rural roads as the project is rather simple and straight forward, not like building highways or multi-tiered roads,” he said.

Aziz said the Public Works Department had taken over the jurisdiction of rural road construction from the district office. He said the ministry had proposed that fresh engineering graduates and diploma holders be appointed as project supervisors. “This will give our graduates the opportunity to be employed and gain experience. It is also more cost effective,” he added.

"Consultant, kena cari makanan lain, cara lain, hidup lain."

Don't worry about this news and don't get upset. You can be sure that politicians said one thing and do another. Remember what Pak Lah said earlier about the open tender for all projects? Well, months later, Second Finance Minister says, there will still be negotiated tenders. A clear sign we received recently is the Kuching airport project was just awarded to Ting Pek King few weeks ago. This is the Malaysia Boleh - the cakap bohong boleh! Cakap sia sia sahaja - untuk syok-syok sahaja.

Kuching Airport Awarded to Ting Pek King

2004-07-13T10:50:00.000+08:00

TING PEK KING FINALLY GETS IT!

It's confirmed. Ting Pek King gets the Airport Extension Project.

We have waited so long to hear this piece of news. Before the news was announced, I was in Kuching last week and I saw earthmoving machines at work. It amaze me that it took the Government 2 weeks after the work had started to make this announcement. To Sarawakians, it's no surprise as we all expected it - we were damned sure Ting Pek King will win.

The irony is that the Government raised 8.5billion in the name of priority projects such as hospital management, schools and road projects, including reserving some of these money for payment to existing contractors who had not been paid for many months. Now, 620 million will be used for the Kuching airport project and probably, SCOMI may be the JV partner or sub-contracor.

Let's celebrate with Ting PK! Cheerio & Malaysia Boleh!

New Pantai Highway - No More Toll Subsidy

2004-06-18T10:39:00.000+08:00

"The Cabinet has decided not to subsidise the toll rate for New Pantai Highway which charge $3.20 one way," said Datuk Seri Samy Toll.

Well, pay for it my friend if you choose to use it - that's the Doctrine of Laissez faire, a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights.

Let the market decides the survival of the wisemen. There are already a number of highways that had sufferred badly due to insufficient revenue from toll collection, such as Port Dickson-Seremban Highway, Kulim-Butterworth Highway, etc.

The people should teach those suckers a lesson by abstaining from the use of those highways that overcharge the users and let time decide their demise. Then Samy vellu will be back to save them by proposing to the Government to save them. Look at Putra Monorail and Star monorail; Khazanah save them from extinction and save Renong Billions of dollars for that failed privatization project.

In the first place, why did Samy agreed on the rate for the toll when he knows from his historical experience that the Rakyat cannot afford it? Just abort the proposed project, and the interested concessionaires will come running to reduce the rates.
Isn't this SANDIWARA SAMY?

CIDB - They have a Master Plan? Are U Sure?

2004-06-16T10:37:00.000+08:00

CIDB NOW HAS A MASTERPLAN TO SUCK MORE FOR A FEW

After 10 years of existence, we now hear something - A Masterplan. They don't have it before (I presumed). It is encouraging news to hear that CIDB is formulating a Masterplan for the development of the construction industry and it's sustainability towards 2020.

CIDB will be inviting the Presidents & CEOs of the companies involved in the industry to help lay down the final groundwork for the Masterplan at the one day meeting on the formulation of the masterplan.

"ONE DAY IS ENOUGH SIR, TO GET THE FEEDBACK AND STRATEGIES TO DRIVE THE MASTER TO PLAN."

“WE are addressing several issues on the development of the construction sector & its sustainability towards 2020,” says Datuk Hamzah Hasan, the CEO of CIDB.

“The Vision of the Masterplan is to make Malaysia among the best construction industry nations of the world,” he said.

Among the areas covered were sustainable flow of domestic projects, foreign markets and human resources.

Based on his statement and the one-day meeting with Industry captains, what do you figure will come good for the industry?

Before I could comment, lets look at CIDB reasons for existence.

CIDB's motto:
CIDB Malaysia-
Understand The Past,
Conquer The Present,
Shape The Future.

The enactment of the ACT 520 [Lembaga Pembangunan Industri Pembinaan Malaysia Act 1994] has paved the way for the empowerment of CIDB Malaysia to:

1) Create a climate for a more vigorous development in the Construction Industry
2) Carry out its functions as the enabling authority to help Construction Industry Players overcome bureaucratic obstacles
3) Play the role of facilitator by addressing the current and future needs of the Construction Industry.

Roles & Responsibility of CIDB:

1)Carrying out all activities in respect of the Construction Industry
2)Awarding certificates of proficiency
3)Establishing, expanding, promoting the establishment or expansion of companies, corporations or other bodies to carry out activities deemed requisite, advantageous or convenient for or in connection with the performance of its functions
4)Providing financial assistance in the form of loans or otherwise, to persons engaged in the Construction Industry for the purpose of promoting the Industry and providing any guarantees on their behalf
5)Imposing fees or any other charges as deemed fit for giving effect to any of its functions or powers
6)Receiving commission or payments in consideration of any services that may be rendered

REASONS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF CIDB:

Prior to the establishment of CIDB Malaysia, the Construction Industry was a very segmented and fragmented one where various players were implementing and carrying out their own programs and activities without proper direction and guidance.
This situation has resulted in challenging issues that involved the:

1) Significant decline in construction quality
2) Acute shortage of skilled and unskilled labour, leading to an over-dependency on foreign labor
3) Lack of pertinent statistics and information required for planning, monitoring and decision-making

It was at this juncture, that the Federal Government acknowledged the need to fill a ‘vacuum’ in the Industry, which paved the way for the establishment of CIDB Malaysia as a regulated body entrusted with the responsibility of:

1) Coordinating the needs and wants of the Industry
2) Planning the direction of the Industry
3) Addressing the pertinent issues and problems faced by the Industry
4) Making recommendations in the formulation of policies for the Industry

To fulfill our (CIDB) Vision, 3 key areas have been identified:

1) Setting the stage for Industry Players to embrace new technology
2) Undertaking development and accreditation programs designed to improve construction quality delivery as well as competitive edge
3) Functioning as a gateway for Construction Industry Players to get involved in the international construction marketplace, with the aim of enabling them to earn leadership positions in overseas ventures and maintaining an open exchange of information with construction leaders worldwide.

To achieve our (CIDB)Vision, the 3 key areas have been translated to involve 4 main initiatives:

1) The development of quality services in Construction as a basis for maintaining and improving competitive edge
2) The focus on Construction Technology Development along the lines of new opportunities for innovation and cost effectiveness
3) A “Going Global” initiative that serves to promote and encourage the export of services and products
4) Continuing efforts in terms of reviewing and revising existing rules and policies with the aim of facilitating the development of the Industry

With a far-reaching view of facilitating the Construction Industry towards enhancing Construction business growth potential, CIDB believes that, to trigger development, there is a compelling need to change the way things are being done.
To facilitate that ‘change’, it is imperative to formulate CIDB’s Mission in the light of improving the overall climate of the Construction Industry, thus leading to improvement in standards, skills, technology, manpower and the overall Construction market.

CIDB’s Mission Statement states…

”Together we develop the Malaysian Construction Industry towards Global Competitiveness.”

CIDB'S CORE VALUES:

CIDB’s Value Proposition to the Construction Industry involves a 2-prong perspective –

The first revolves around our focus on relentless efforts on “Adding Value Where It Counts” and
The 2nd perspective encompasses the need to assist the Construction Industry to “Understand its Past, Conquer the Present and Shape the Future”.

CIDB’s objective is to

1) Develop the Construction Industry to be one of the major contributing sectors to the National Economy,
2) capable of producing and delivering high quality construction works,
3) value for money and being responsive to the Nation’s needs.

CIDB’s development framework is derived from the 11 functions:

1) to promote and stimulate the development, improvement and expansion of the construction industry
2) to advise and make recommendations to the Federal Government and the State Government on matters affecting or connected with the construction industry
3) to promote, stimulate and undertake research into any matter relating to the construction industry
4) to promote, stimulate and assist in the export of service relating to the construction industry
5) to provide consultancy and advisory services with respect to the construction industry
6) to promote quality assurance in the construction industry
7) to encourage the standardisation and improvement of construction techniques and materials
8) to initiate and maintain a construction industry information system
9) to provide, promote, review and coordinate training programmes organised by public and private construction training centres for skilled construction workers and construction site supervisors
10) to accredit and register contractors and to cancel, suspend or reinstate the registration of any registered contractor, and
11) to accredit and certify skilled construction workers and construction site supervisors.

These functions have been referenced as a basis for CIDB’s formulation of her corporate initiatives that in turn were translated into:

CIDB Helps The Construction Industry To Explore And Harnesss Overseas Opportunities

NOW LETS ANALYZE:

Has CIDB effort so far (for the last 9 years) be any near their Vision, Mission, Goals & Objectives that were spelt out within their system (as published in their web). CIDB’s contribution to the Construction Industry is demonstrated via…………????? other than the India projects for a selected few crony contractors at the expense of tens of thousands of contributing members? AND CIDB IS FOCUSED INTO THIS POINT OF CONTENTION - THAT IS - GO TO INDIA, SRI LANKA, SUDAN, ETC & GET JOBS FOR CONTRACTOR & EXTRACT MORE FEES FROM THEM (PLUS THEIR OWN POCKET)

ACT 520 was established by the government to paved the way for the empowerment of CIDB Malaysia to:

1) Create a climate for a more vigorous development in the Construction Industry

What is this that CIDB can claim that they have created an environment for a vigorous development in the construction industry? What are the deliverables to-date on the subject point and what have been measured so far, i.e. the key Performance Index?

2) Carry out its functions as the enabling authority to help Construction Industry Players overcome bureaucratic obstacles

3) Play the role of facilitator by addressing the current and future needs of the Construction Industry.

Did CIDB offered any helping hands to thousands of contractors who faced problems such as labor shortages, shortage of building materials such as steel bars, and the problems of labor shortage caused by the deportation of foreign workers by the Government in year 2000? What about the abandon projects and failed projects that affects the livelihood of those purchasers? CIDB collected hundreds of millions of ringgits from contractors of these property development projects and if the purchaser suffers, what has CIDB done to help them - did they talk to the bankers to help suspend the loans for a certain period, help cushion off that period of uncertainty, or initiate actions to restore the project and get it to completion? CIDB only collects money from these projects but contribute nothing to the projects and the stakeholders!!!!!

REASONS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF CIDB:

The challenging issues as stated, and as the very reason of the existence of CIDB are:

1) Significant decline in construction quality
2) Acute shortage of skilled and unskilled labour, leading to an over-dependency on foreign labor
3) Lack of pertinent statistics and information required for planning, monitoring and decision-making

Out of the 3 areas, what have we achieve thus far? Look into the construction projects and see who are the workers today - basically 99% foreigners consisting of mostly Indonesians, Bangladeshis, Thais and Myanmars. Do we hear of any strategic action by CIDB on how to overcome our dependency on foreign labors? NAYs! Have CIDB build up statistics and information required for planning, monitoring and decision-making necessary to help contractors in tendering and estimating? If it is, there must be available database in the website for contractors info, such as:

1) What is the price of plywood in Perak, Selangor, Johor, Trengganu and how many types and standards are available locally? What have CIDB done to help make plywood more competitively priced? Did they set up agencies to help reduce the price of plywood?
2) What about timber? Each state has different timber price and availability?
3) What about steel bars? Did CIDB talk to Datuk Abu Sahid of Perwaja and get him to commit to supply steel bars to contractors who faced difficulties in getting them, which delayed project completion.

In the SMART Tunnel project, Bakun, SMART School, Computer Lab projects, Did CIDB help contractors to have the opportunity to participate in those project and when the computer lab projects was in trouble, what was the contribution of CIDB?

FUNDAMENTALLY, THE PROBLEM WITH CIDB IS NOT WHAT THEY CAN DO BUT WHAT THEY DIDN'T DO!

Confucius says, "Till you admit that you know what don't not know, you will not achieve profound knowledge."

The Eleven functions set by CIDB that give rise to the formulation of her corporate initiatives which in turn were translated into: CIDB Helps The Construction Industry To Explore And Harnesss Overseas Opportunities - THAT WAS THE SOLE REASON WHICH DEFEAT THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S INTENTION FOR SETTING UP CIDB IN 1994.

The first question CIDB should consider before putting up the Masterplan is:

"How are the contractors which consists of Class A to Class F plus those in the private sectors (all of them contribute 0.25% of the contract value to CIDB) - How is CIDB going to serve them? What are their needs, what are their weaknesses and what are their lack of knowledge and competencies? What about their financial problems caused by late payment, particularly of Government projects; can CIDB provide them with some financial credit or guarantees to help them get construction materials and pay their labor wages?

There are many Class F, E and Class D contractors, particularly those Bumiputera companies that need assistance in terms of technical expertise and technical informations, including Engineering design knowledge - what can CIDB do for them?

The Mission Statement of CIDB - ”Together we develop the Malaysian Construction Industry towards Global Competitiveness.” is too far fetch; it's more a Vicious Statement than a Mission; The Mission will not be achieve as it is made in DREAMLAND. Does CIDB understand what is Global Competitiveness? Can we compete with Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, Thais? What can CIDB do to prepare the Malaysian contractors to have the competitive advantage over the other international players? What are the statistical datas that Malaysian contractors must know of their international counterparts? What is competitiveness - in terms of cost leadership, branding, uniqueness, product quality, service quality, efficiency, networking and relationship building, strategic partnership, etc? Do we have any measurement standards and benchmarks? Do we have CIDB to do research, regular and continuous research that keeps us inform? Does CIDB having collected Billions of ringgit have a full-time research team - what's the money for, what did they spent it on, where the money?

CIDB’s Value Proposition to the Construction Industry involves a 2-prong perspective – the first revolves around our focus on relentless efforts on “Adding Value Where It Counts” and the 2nd perspective encompasses the need to assist the Construction Industry to “Understand its Past, Conquer the Present and Shape the Future”.

IS THAT WHAT WAS CIDB'S CORE VALUES? ADDING VALUE WHERE IT COUNTS - WHAT VALUES? COLLECTING MONEY FROM CONTRACTORS; ISSUING GREEN CARD TO WORKERS FOR $250? WHAT ARE THE VALUES ADDED FOR THE CONTRACTORS, THE STAFFS & THE WORKERS? CONTRACTORS WHO SENT THEIR STAFFS FOR TRAINING WITH CIDB HAD TO PAY EACH TIME THEY ATTEND THOSE TRAINING - WHY, WHY, WHY? AREN'T THE 0.25% COLLECTION TO BE USED TO PROVIDE TRAINING?

UNDERSTAND OUR PAST (yea, we were weak contractors)
CONQUER THE PRESENT (yea, WE WERE CONQUERED BY CIDB'S GREED & PROFANITY! pay CIDB 0.25% and pay for the green card and training fees)
SHAPE THE FUTURE (Oh, no; got to pay for the Directors' trip overseas and their families and their pension; OH SHIT)

$400 million Monorail Project Derailed

2004-06-14T10:34:00.000+08:00

Second Rail project derailed by Pak-Lah

The $400 million monorail project in Putrajaya is suspended due to lack of funds.

Many question arises from this decision by the Government:
1) Have the Government of Mahathir made a bad decision? Do we actually need that project in the first place?
2) Is Pak-Lah's Government having financial problems? or
3) Is Pak-Lah changing a new set of (crony) contractor?
4) What is the effect of such action have on the economy?
5) Are contractors going to suffer due to less Government projects? or
6) Are only those crony contractors affected?

What is the alarm signal from here? Contractors are trembling and the cycle of change due to less forthcoming Government projects have actually been a cause of concern to the Malaysian economy as a whole.

According to Pak Lah, "the Economy have recovered and that there is no need for stimulus projects." Datuk Mustapa Mohammad denied that the Government is in financial difficulties. But Tan Sri Mohd Isa Abdul Samad, the Federal Territory Minister says otherwise. WHO IS LYING????? ALAMAK!

CIDB - Is it a Construction Development Board or ???

2004-06-07T10:30:00.000+08:00

7th. June 2004 CIDB

CIDB FAILED TO SERVE IT'S PAYING CUSTOMERS

Every contractor, big or small has to contribute o.25% of their contract value to CIDB for each and every project they undertake.

Presumably, the contribution required is to finance the DEVELOPMENT & COMPETENCY PROGRAMMES to prepare the Malaysian contractors to achieve quality and efficiency in the field of project management and construction management and to nurture the contractors and the Malaysian construction industry players in general, such that they will be on par to international standards. CIDB was set up by the Mahathir's Government to lead the CHANGE & IMPROVEMENTS. At such, they are held responsible to lead and manage the construction industry in TOTAL.

All the last few years, CIDB had spent it's time and moneys (collected from all the contractors) to set their targets for projects in India, Sri Lanka, etc. This had benefitted some large international corporations such as IJM, Binapuri, Roadbuilders, MMC, Lankhorst, etc, etc. BUT what have all the other contractors benefitted from CIDB's international projects?????? The tens of thousands of paying Class 'F' contractors, Class - E, D, C, B, BX, and many Class 'A' contractors???? Each and everyone of the contractors are contributing to CIDB's coffers, paying for all the expenses incurred and the amount collected is in excess of billions of ringgits. WHAT HAVE CIDB DONE FOR THEM??????

Does Malaysia, particularly the construction sector needs the existence of CIDB? I have asked hundreds of contractors this questions and so far, everyone is affirmative that CIDB has developed into a parasite; a Hirudinea, a "Leech" and a "Pain-in-the ASS".

What has the Government done for the contractors, as far as CIDB is concerned? Why do they collect the hundreds of millions yearly so that they can go to INDIA & SRI LANKA? What has Datuk Hamzah done for CIDB and what has Tan Sri Wan Abdul Rahman (ex-JKR Director General, and now CIDB's Chairman) done to benefit the contractors in the industry, particularly the Class 'B' down to Class 'F' contractors? Some class 'A' contractors did benefit from CIDB (Indian & Sri Lanka projects) but many Class 'A' contractors are not getting anything from CIDB.

WILL PAK-LAH DO SOMETHING ABOUT CIDB & REVAMP THE WHOLE ORGANIZATION? WITH DUE RESPECT TO ALL THOSE IN CIDB, THEY DO NOT DESERVE ANY RESPECT FOR THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR THE INDUSTRY, EXCEPT TO SPENT ALL THE MONIES COLLECTED FOR THEIR TRIPS TO INDIA, SRI LANKA, ETC, ETC.

I HAVE BEEN WITH THE CONTRACTORS FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS AND I CAN TESTIFY TO WHAT I'VE SAID!!!!! CHALLENGE ME!

Old Klang Road Project Delay

2004-05-26T10:22:00.000+08:00

Jalan Kelang Lama Project Delayed

26th. May 2004, The Star report

The roadwork project in Jalan Kelang Lama was reported to be delayed and the delay reason was attributed to the relocation of existing telecommunication services owned by Telekom Malaysia.

Lately, we have heard and read much about the restructuring of the Government Link Companies (GLCs, and the much talk about introduction of performance measurement tools such as KPI, Balance Scorecard, Six Sigma, etc to enhance efficiency and productivity; and it is well-known fact that Telekom Malaysia had over the years, been applying these "effective tools", (especially KPI) to measure their performance. Yet we wonder how effective the tools are, and how did the management measures performance while we often hear of construction project being delayed primarily due to the relocation of existing services and the culprits are Telekom, TNB, Waterworks Department (JBA), DBKL (for KL projects).

On an unrelated issue, I had a problem with my streamyx (not able to access the service, maybe due to my ADSL modem which is under warranty) and I made a report as usual. I was told by their service department that they will need at least one week to sent a technician to resolve my problem (reason is they are too many such problems to attend and limited resources). I begged for help saying that I'm a researcher and will have problem with my day-to-day activities without the service. Fortunately, the technician came the next day and my problem was resolved (Thanks to the good samaritan). Is it common for telekom to take one week to solve problem like this? Is this efficiency and customer service, customer-oriented, customer satisfaction?

The report today (roadworks delay) is not the only one we have heard all these years. If you have been involved with construction projects and JKR road projects, you will understand that these sort of problems have been plaguing the industry players for umpteen years and no improvement had been made so far (Talk to JKR Project Managers and they will verify this). Yet these GLCs still say they had an effective performance measurement system to monitor efficiency, effectiveness and productivity; and they can & want to be world class. I have been involved in construction projects for the last 20 odd years, and I testify to this inefficiencies by the GLCs.

What is efficiency and effectiveness? What is Performance Measurement?; what is Key Performance Index?; What is Balance Scorecard and Six Sigma? Top Management in GLCS talk a lot about it (often made public statement about it - read the News), but do they understand it and do they have a strategic plan to achieve it? CAKAP TAK SERUPA BIKIN! For many Malaysian Contractors, they have learn to live with such inefficiencies and have adapted to the system of incompetence and it has become part and parcel of their construction life. Some contractors who have political linkage, use their political connection to influence action.Some other contractors who are not so fortunate to rub shoulders with politician (because it is very expensive to rub them; its the truth) uses more innovative actions to solve this problem by "Paying to get Efficient Services" to ensure affirmative action. Is all this UNKNOWN, UNCOMMON, UNHEARD TO OUR MINISTERS & THE CEOs OF GLCs? (Some of the CEOs of GLCs were with other organization before joining GLCs - they should understand)
COME-ON; BE MALAYSIAN & ADMIT THE TRUTH; AFTERALL THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE ADOPTED - THE MALAYSIA-BOLEH PHILOSOPHY!!!!!!!!!

Kuching Airport Yet to Award but Work Started

2004-04-23T10:15:00.000+08:00

COVER-UP CASE OF KUCHING AIRPORT PROJECT

UPGRADE FOR KUCHING AIRPORT

In the Star news (Friday 23 April 2004) page 21 (Nation), Datuk Chan Kong Choy, the Transport Minister said that Kuching International Airport will be upgraded once the Federal Govt decides to implement the project. He further add (quote), "The Federal Govt is in the final stage of making a decision & the project is definitely on... We have not awarded the contract yet but will be making the final decision soon." (unquote).

Interestingly, when I was in Kuching last year, I saw many earthmoving machines carrying out earthworks at the Airport, and so, I asked a client of mine from Kuching, "what are those activities?" I was informed that it was a contract awarded to a contractor (purportedly related to Tan Sri Ting Pek King) for the extension of the current airport. My curiousity arose as I felt that the work carried out was slow-moving and looks like the contractor is having problem.

Now, with this piece of news, I can understand what is happening. As I wonder and ponder, how is it that the contractor, if he hasn't yet being awarded a contract, how could he start work and how come he is given possession of site by the Govt????? Or, is Chan Kong Choy putting up a LIE story??? I just wonder if our Ministers are transparent and honest as expounded by PM Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi? Is it a new way of business game in Malaysia that if anybody is keen on a Govt. project, he should show initiative by mobilizing his plants and machineries & get the works commenced such that the Govt would have no alternative but to award that project to him?

In a similar scenario, the construction work for the Stormwater project in KL was well in progress when Mahathir made the announcement of the immediate need to have a Stormwater drainage system immediately after Dataran Merdeka sufferred a bad flood many months ago. The project was awarded to MMC-Gamuda on a Turnkey-Design & Build & Operate Basis (privatization concept). Since then, the new PM has made some change to the contract. The question again arose is - "Was the contract work in progress well before an award letter being issued & how did they get possession of site without an award letter???"

I continue to wonder if our new PM understand the relative meaning when he says - "Cakap Tak Serupa Bikin" & "that he pledge that he will choose ministers with integrity, honest and untainted reputation." Could Pak-Lah shed some light on the Kuching Airport Extension Project and why was work being carried out if the project has yet to be awarded????

I can only add an advice to Pak-Lah, "Do you know your Ministers well and do you really want a clean Govt???? GOD Bless you and GOD help the Malaysians who are not cronies...........

Bakun Project Damned Again

2003-11-07T10:08:00.000+08:00

BAKUN DAMNED ONCE AGAIN - HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF

Bakun Dam project delay

The question of insufficient equipments as related by the consortium companies was puzzling as it was managed by a supposely dynamic and strong organizational team for that's why the project was awarded to them by the government of Malaysia. Many project management professionals & fello industry players had attributed the delay to reasons such as the lack of planning, lack of information, & possibly unforeseen circumstances was the main reason.

I'm am certainly sure that lack of planning by the project team members (excluding the top management) isn't the main cause of those failures as this would be a marked disrespect to those engineers and managers currently working on the project as the team currently handling the project are well experience and qualified people - people who had been with this project since the days of Ting Pek King & those who had been associated with Bakun project since the inception, and those who had been building dams over the last 20 years and the presence of experience sub-contractors.

What could have been unspoken and shielded may be the complex & disturbing relationship of the consortium members, their defined roles & responsibilities and the conflict among themselves as to the sharing of the cake & appointment of sub-contractors. Unless each consortium member are agreeable with their scope of work & role-play, the delay to the project is the natural outcome of poor (money)management.

Project cannot be run without proper and adequate fundings and at this very stage, the funding issue seem yet to be resolved. Santa Claus in the form of EPF (the rich Daddy) will be there soon as the call had come from non other than Syed Mokhtar, the main schemer. The irony is that the project was awarded to a consortium led by Syed Mokhtar who had convince the government that they had readily resources and the financial muscles (plus GIIG support) that is capable of undertaking & funding this size of project on a turnkey basis (BOT). If not I can't find an appropriate reason why the project was awarded to them.

If EPF is going to use the millions of contributors money to back the consortium, then the return on investment must be justified. I just wonder whether this is going to be another bailout like STAR LRT, PUTRA LRT & MAS, etc..... & EPF continues to pay dismal returns to the shareholders.