When I wrote my earlier piece on the same topic focused on the IJN case, the highway concession agreements were not yet on public display. Today they are and therefore I want to add more gunpowder to my earlier argument that \”the privatisation programme of the government\” over the last 15 years has become a tool for \”siphoning public funds out for private purposes.\”
Most importantly, I would like to support Citizen Nades\’ assertion vide his column in the Sun on Jan 7 on the same. I believe such a deviation in policy formulation and problem definition came after the \”infamous\” Umno A versus B fight, and after the former Umno became a de-registered and bankrupt organisation.
Privatisation, if done well, and with clear and present but vigilant policy oversight can become a major success, even merely as a policy instrument. The problem with the most of our recent \”piratization projects\” was there was no transparent or open process for bids and the corresponding process of disposal of public assets was often done outside of the due process of the Financial Procedures Act, which is the governing legislation for the disposal of all pubic assets.
Moreover, such disposal of public assets and opportunities was done
\”outside of the Ministry of Finance\” and under a \”newly acquired jurisdiction\” of the Economic Planning Unit; which traditionally had no authority for the disposal of public assets.
The EPU, I understand, submitted all the later cases to the Cabinet and that backdoor process became the avenue for \”rationalization of the improper disposal of public assets.\” Is it then any wonder that, as Citizen Nades states and quotes TDM, the former PM was confused how the Cabinet received such \”poor policy advice?\” Privatisation had become piratisation; the illegitimised means for private interests to rape public assets. March 8 must start a process to dismantle all such public abuses.
During one of my Intan promotion courses, I distinctly remember asking a former auditor-general why he did not undertake a proper management audit of such obvious mismanagement of public assets. He replied that these disposals of public assets were all done based on Cabinet decisions and therefore no law was \”technically violated.\” I totally disagree and like everyone else in the public services then, many senior officers were probably promoted to the position because they \”were willing to collude or agree with the system and their wrong-doing.\”
LDP concession
Allow me therefore to continue to make my case against such \”piratisation of public assets; whether lands or facilities\” in benefit of the private interest of the illegitimate owners and stewards. The specific case I would like to highlight involves the LDP concession. While accountants and finance-types will normally look at the Internal Rate of Return for such investments, including cost-benefit type calculations for the 30-year concession, mine is simply a managerial-type audit suggesting the lack of proper governance and transparency of jurisdictions between the Federal, State and Local Governments in the disposal of this public concession.
While I make my arguments specifically about the LDP but most of the issues and points are valid for any other \”equally piratised tollway\” around KL/PJ, with maybe one exception of the Guthrie Highway.
Before the LDP was developed, the former road between Damansara Utama, Damansara Jaya and SS2 was a local authority road constructed by the developers, but planned for and approved by MPPJ. It was a local authority road and not a federally funded road. Maybe the older Damansara Road from KL to the Kepong junction was probably a federally funded JKR road but not this one. Even the overpass over the Federal Highway at the Motorolla junction was also probably a JKR-built federal bridge and road but was probably constructed for the public interest of local residents of PJ Utara and PJ Selatan; the then major suburb of KL.
Now let us also assume that the building of the LDP was necessary for public interest because some town planner anticipated the growth and development of traffic between Damasara and Puchong. Rightly so, the traffic has now surpassed most predictions.
What would be the best way to then undertake such a \”public highway project\” inset with complications in terms of design challenges and other economic considerations? Let us also agree that the Federal Government did not want to expend and stretch the services of the JKR to implement such a project; and especially because they did not want to bother with raising the funds for such a huge and expensive mega project. What then would be the best way to undertake such a venture based on the Financial Procedure Act and all the requisite Treasury Instructions?
First, a Concept Request for Proposal will be called and all parties with capabilities and the capacity to undertake the project would be asked to make a bid for the project. After the best alternatives are considered, the technical project proposal will be tabled for a hearing by affected local residents. Based on the public hearing and constituency member feedback, planning parameters may be modified and adjusted to take care of the views and concerns of the local residents.
Then a public tender is called and potential contractors are asked to bid for the specified project. If it is a privatised project, the bidders would be requested to bid with their economic model for financing the project and raising revenue in the future to maintain and sustain the project. Even in doing this there are many types of privatisation-enabled models for financing them.
The best project contractor with the best proposal to service public interest is selected and awarded the project with oversight for planning and negotiations assigned to the JKR; with implementation responsibility assigned to the Highway Authority.
Who are the real culprits?
The question then to ask is, was such a planning and purchasing model followed? If not, why not and who are the real culprits responsible for \”derailing the existing policy framework for such awards?\” I agree with Citizen Nades that both the Cabinet and Ministry of Finance are the key and core responsible parties for such due process and oversight.
I have also some more questions. How can the jurisdiction and ownership of a local authority road be legally handed over for oversight, surveillance and supervision to a private company? Do Local Residents suddenly lose their locus standi and ownership of these local roads?
For instance, ever since the LDP was constructed, the road to and from our children\’s school and home became far more distant and time-consuming. Who should be held for such a disruption in the normal life of thousands of local residents? These and many more questions and issues that challenge me, as I think of how privatisation became piratisation.
