Share This

Thursday, 25 January 2018

Penang Landslide occured days after remedial works started

Cracks at Tanjung Bungah site began in June, Commissioner of Inquiry told

Expert panel: (From right) Yeo, Dr Gue and Prof Ramli arriving for the inquiry.
 
GEORGE TOWN: A temporary structure supporting a worksite slope in Tanjung Bungah developed cracks in mid-June, a Commissioner of Inquiry heard.

Soil Mechanic Sdn Bhd director Cheah Wing How, who was a sub-contractor of the project where a landslide killed 11 workers, said he was informed by a clerk to carry out remedial works as the granite wall had cracked.

Cheah said his team left after completing the granite works and soil-nailing works to enhance the stability of the temporary slope.

There was, however, no mention when they completed the works.

“When we returned, we found there were pile cap excavation works carried out near the slope.

“We believe there was soil movement that resulted in the cracks on the granite wall.

“We were carrying out remedial works and 11 days into the job, the landslide happened,” said Cheah, who has 20 years’ experience in the field.

Cheah was testifying on the first day of the public hearing into the landslide tragedy by the State Commission of Inquiry (SCI) at City Hall in Esplanade yesterday.

On Oct 21, last year, a landslide hit the affordable condominium project made up of two 49-storey towers with 980 units in total within the Permai Village township near the Tunku Abdul Rahman University College.

Among the 11 killed was site supervisor Yuan Kuok Wern, 27.

During the proceeding, the Penang Island City Council (MBPP) also presented eight drone videos that showed the slope and the surrounding area after the tragic incident.

SCI chairman Datuk Yeo Yong Poh said they planned to carry out a site visit tomorrow.

He also fixed the hearing to continue until Monday, followed by Feb 8 to Feb 11, March 24 to March 28 and April 18 to 25.

Other members of the commission are geotechnical expert Datuk Dr Gue See Sew and forensic geo-technical engineer from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Prof Ramli Nazir.

The SCI was gazetted on Dec 21 last year to investigate the landslide after Yang di-Pertua Negri Tun Rahman Abbas gave his consent on Dec 6, 2017, for the appointment of the members of the commission and its terms of reference.

Meanwhile, Penang Citizens Awareness Chant Group (Chant) adviser Yan Lee said the entrance to the Teik Granite Quarry, which is located near the site where the landslide occurred, should be fenced up.

“Anyone can just walk into the site as the safety measure is not up to mark.

“We have voiced our concern to the Penang Island City Council, the Department of Environment as well as the Land and Mines Department,” he said yesterday.

By Chong Kah Yuan and Jo-Leen Wong The Star


Related Links:

Boulders slid down hill prior to disaster - Nation





Contractors in jitters over temporary slopes - Nation


Related posts:

Penang landslide tragedy, plea went unheeded, no one listened !

 

Behind BJ Cove houses at Lintang Bukit Jambul 1 is an IJM Trehaus Project.  Approximate Coordinates : 5°20'38.47"N,100°16'..

Wednesday, 24 January 2018

Tough questions on Penang turnel project; Engineering Consultant arrested in probe



https://youtu.be/ssVkoxxvIAA



https://youtu.be/JRGwMXwkm1c

https://youtu.be/xbSZ55BNyQM

In-depth query: A screen grab of the video where Dr Wee demanded explanations over the controversial Penang undersea tunnel.

Dr Wee, is trained as a civil engineer has a Master’s in traffic engineering and a PhD in transportation planning, believed to have worked as an Environmental Impact Assessment and Traffic Impact Assessment consultant for more than a decade. He is currently a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department.

Wee asks Penang govt tough questions

Wee poses more questions to Guan Eng on tunnel project

Wee raises doubt over paid-up capital and ability of SPV - Nation

Lim: Contract between CRCC and Penang govt legally binding ...


PETALING JAYA: Datuk Seri Dr Wee Ka Siong threw hard-hitting questions at the Penang government, demanding an explanation for the controversial undersea tunnel project.

The MCA deputy president raised major concerns in videos uploaded in two parts to MCA’s YouTube channel.

He zeroed in on the changes in the paid-up capital of a special purpose vehicle (SPV) and how two Chinese construction giants have “disappeared” from the SPV shareholding.

He also touched on the state government’s “agreement” with China Railway Construction Corpo­ration Ltd (CRCC) and Penang’s insistence that no money was paid for the project.

In the videos, also uploaded on Dr Wee’s Facebook page, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department had a whiteboard to his left showing the changes in the shareholding while a television screen to his right displayed various documents.

Dr Wee wanted Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng to clarify why the SPV Consortium Zenith Construc­tion Sdn Bhd’s paid-up capital was reduced from RM4.6bil to RM70.5mil.

He said while Beijing Urban Construction Group (BUCG) was no longer a shareholder in the SPV, CRCC was never in the picture.

Dr Wee said back in March 4, 2013, the state government’s official newsletter Buletin Mutiara published an article quoting state secretary Datuk Seri Farizan Darus as saying the SPV had a paid-up capital of RM4.6bil, with Zenith Construction Sdn Bhd and CRCC jointly holding a 70% stake in it.

“We are in great shock because just days ago, CRCC went on record to deny ever being a shareholder and developer of the undersea tunnel SPV.

“Without the participation of CRCC and BUCG, the actual capital of the other component SPV back then is only RM8.2mil,” said Dr Wee, who is trained as a civil engineer and has a Master’s in traffic engineering and a PhD in transportation planning.

He, however, said the SPV had a total paid-up capital of RM70.5mil.

Dr Wee added that currently, Zenith Construction has a 47.12% equity in the SPV, Juteras Sdn Bhd (0.75%); Kenanga Nominees (Tempatan) Sdn Bhd (38.92%) and Vertice Bhd (formerly known as Voir Holdings Bhd, 13.21%).

He also revealed that Consortium Zenith BUCG Sdn Bhd was only registered on July 5, 2012, one day before the state government invited the consortium to submit a request for proposal (RFP).

“Chief Minister, you may argue that they formed the consortium just one day before to make it to the tender.

“But bear in mind your state secretary said the consortium was selected based on the financial and technical strength of CRCC and BUCG,” he said, adding that Zenith Construction was only less than three months old when it was then invited to participate in the pre-qualification for the tender.

Dr Wee also said that Acknowled­gement of Commitment signed by the state government with CRCC was not a legally binding document.

“Where is the stamping of documents as required and which is the Court of Arbitration to arbitrate disputes?” he asked.

Dr Wee also questioned Lim’s stand that not a single sen was paid when state exco member Lim Hock Seng replied in the state assembly on March 19 last year that a land swap deal worth RM208mil was identified.

“The said land has been developed and sales of properties for the City of Dreams (which is built on the land) are ongoing. Aren’t you aware of that?

Dr Wee also urged Lim to give a detailed breakdown of how Consor­tium Zenith reaped a significant after-tax profit of RM60mil for the financial year that ended on Aug 31, 2015, when it had only conducted studies and had yet to start any construction work.- The Star

Engineering Consultant arrested in tunnel probe 

'Datuk Seri' remanded for five days in Penang tunnel probe - Nation 

Datuk Seri remanded in probe

Magistrate Ainna Sherina Saipolamin allowed the 62-year-old "Datuk Seri" to be held in custody until Jan 29.

Engineering consultant remanded for five days - Nation


In custody: The consultant being taken out of the magistrate’s court in Putrajaya. — Bernama


PETALING JAYA: A senior engineering consultant in her 50s is the latest to be detained in connection with the probe over controversies surrounding the Penang undersea tunnel project.

The consultant is believed to have forged claim documents for the feasibility studies valued at RM305mil for the mega project of three main roads and an undersea tunnel to the state government, said a source familiar with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigation.

The woman is expected to be remanded at the Putrajaya magistrate’s court today.

She was arrested at MACC headquarters in Putrajaya at 6.10pm yesterday after her statement was recorded.

“The investigators are trying to determine if other individuals were involved in the preparation of the falsified documents,” the source added.

The engineering consultant is the third person to be arrested in MACC’s investigations into the Penang undersea tunnel project.

Two high-ranking Datuks of development and construction companies were earlier arrested on Jan 9 before being remanded for six days beginning Jan 10.

The remand was then extended for another five days from Jan 15.

They were released on MACC bail of RM200,000 each on Jan 19 by the Putrajaya magistrate’s court.

On Monday, MACC deputy chief commissioner (operation) Datuk Seri Azam Baki had said that more individuals would be hauled up over the project.

The RM6.3bil mega project includes building the 7.2km undersea tunnel connecting Gurney Drive on the island to Bagan Ajam in north Butterworth, 10.53km North Coastal Paired Road from Tanjung Bungah to Teluk Bahang, 5.7km Air Itam-Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu Expressway bypass and the 4.075km Gurney Drive-Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu Expressway bypass.

The MACC has since recorded statements from more than 70 people and visited more than 40 premises in the course of their investigation.

By Royce Tan The Star

State govt can only hold SPV liable, says Wee


PETALING JAYA: Although Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has reiterated that not a single sen was paid for the feasibility study of the undersea tunnel, the fact remained that it was paid in kind, said Datuk Seri Dr Wee Ka Siong.

Dr Wee, who is MCA deputy president, said the crux of the problem was that the state government had no contractual nexus with the contractor.

“The state government can only hold the special purpose vehicle (SPV) liable, not the contractor.

“Don’t confuse the people with the SPV and the contractor. SPV means you can hold it liable.

“If a contractor is subsequently awarded by the SPV, that’s between the contractor and the SPV.

“If the SPV fails to pay the contractor, the contractor has no obligations (to construct),” he said.

He added that he had conducted a comprehensive research and he knew what happened.

“I welcome this project, but it must be carried out in a proper manner. This is what I want.

“Don’t blame others. If at all you need to blame somebody, it is your SPV that you appointed.

“They keep on delaying the report, not us. We have no say in the report and we’ve not even seen it,” said Dr Wee.- The Star


Related Links:

Contract value of roads increased significantly, says See-To - Nation ...

 

Penang has enough roads and linkages, say activists - Nation |



Related posts:

Filepic: PenangPropertyTalk Did the Penang Govt do a "bait and switch" on the Penang people? That was the question pose...
Behind BJ Cove houses at Lintang Bukit Jambul 1 is an IJM Trehaus Project.  Approximate Coordinates : 5°20'38.47"N,100°16'..

Monday, 22 January 2018

The American dream turned nightmare, President Trump's first year ...

A homeless man sleeps under an American flag blanket on a park bench in New York City in this file picture. As of June 2013, there was an all-time record of 50,900 homeless people, including 12,100 homeless families with 21,300 homeless children in New York - Photos AFP
A young homeless woman panhandles on the streets of Manhattan in New York City. According to a new report released by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development New York City’s homeless population expanded by about 4% in 2017.

American culture and a new tax Bill are exacerbating chronic poverty by helping to widen the wealth gap.

SITTING among a jumble of his few possessions on a San Francisco sidewalk, 41-year-old “Kaels” Raybon has begun to accept the bad choices he made.

He was a drug user, and did jail time. By the time he was let out, his wife and four children – two boys and two girls – had left him. Other family members had died and he had nowhere to live. He has now spent over 15 years on the street.

America may be the land of equal opportunity – but like many other countries, there is a thin line between a life on the street and a roof over one’s head. Poverty creates its own loop; a prison record, for instance, makes it difficult to find employment.

Raybon’s voice trembles as he speaks of his children.

“Emotionally, I’m a wreck most of the time,” he admits. “I see kids and dads, and I want that too. But it’s just not in my cards.”

The children came to visit him one day, he says. He was torn. “I wanted them to stay, but at the same time I didn’t, because I have nothing to offer them.”

Raybon is among those who make up the most visible indicator of America’s worsening poverty and inequality – over half a million urban homeless. They are a stark contrast in arguably the world’s richest, most powerful and most technologically innovative country.

But homelessness is only the visible tip of the poverty iceberg. Large areas outside big cities are mired in chronic poverty. The definition of poverty varies, but a commonly used measure from 2015 is an annual income of US$12,000 (RM47,500) or less.

Forty-one million Americans live in poverty – 12.7% of the country’s population. Some 46% of those live in “deep poverty” – on an annual income below US$6,000 (RM23,700).

Among them are 1.5 million households, including 2.8 million children, who live in extreme poverty or on less than US$2 (RM8) per person per day.

“These are people who cannot find work ... who do not qualify for any other (welfare) programmes or who may live in remote areas. They are disconnected from both the safety net and the job market,” Dr Premilla Nadasen, author and professor at Barnard College in New York City, wrote in the Washington Post newspaper on Dec 21.

Poverty is in the news again on the heels of a scathing 15-page statement released late last year by Dr Philip Alston, a tall, lean, 67-year-old New York University law professor from Melbourne, Australia, who is the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights. A special rapporteur functions like an investigator and reports back to the UN.

Dr Alston is not known for beating about the bush. After a 15-day swing across six American states and cities, he is warning that worse is in store for America’s poor, at the wrong end of an increasingly widening wealth gap, and in an environment and official culture in which if you are down and out, it is probably your own fault.

The recent passage of the Republican Party’s tax Bill will make their lives worse, says Dr Alston. The Treasury Department has explicitly listed welfare reform as an important source of revenue in part to make up for the deficit that the tax cut is likely to trigger.

More important, however, is the culture.

“In a poor country, there are two starting points – that there are social rights, and citizens have a right to healthcare, a right to education, a right to food,” Dr Alston says at an interview in his booklined office at New York University.

“Second, the only thing standing in our way is resources; we just don’t have the money.”

“In the US, it’s the exact opposite,” he says. “There’s no such thing as social rights. If people are living in abysmal conditions, it’s their fault because we have equality of opportunity.

“Secondly, it’s not a resource problem. We just found US$1.5trillion (RM6trillion) to give to the super rich. The money would have been there to eliminate poverty if there had been any political will. But there isn’t.”

The US$1.5trillion refers to the Republicans’ tax Bill, passed just before Christmas that will bring the middle class some relief but inevitably, analysts say, end up benefiting the wealthy disproportionately.

America’s wealth gap has been steadily widening. On average in 1981, the top 1% of adult Americans earned 27 times more than the bottom 50%. Today, they earn 81 times more.

Meanwhile, since the 1970s, the safety net has been considerably diminished, Dr Nadasen wrote in the Post recently. “Labour regulations protecting workers have been rolled back, and funding for education and public programmes has declined. The poor have been the hardest hit.”

She added: “The shredding of the safety net led to a rise in poverty. The United States has the highest child poverty rates – 25% in the world.

In the course of his tour, Dr Alston saw houses in rural areas of Alabama surrounded by pools of sewage. “The state health department had no idea how many households exist in these conditions, nor did they have any plan to find out, or devise a plan to do something about it,” he says in his statement.

He could not help noticing that most of the area’s residents were black. But while racial divisions are not far below the surface, it would be misleading to assume that poverty is generally worse in the Native American and African American minorities. It cuts across all ethnicities. There are eight million more poor white people than black people.

Like Rudy Damian, 53, who as a teenager ended up homeless in San Francisco after taking drugs and alcohol and being involved in crime – a common pattern contributing to broken families and financial ruin.

He has several missing teeth – dental care is not covered by most health insurance and the poor, at best, can go only to hospital emergency rooms where invariably a tooth is simply extracted.

Damian says he is sober now, and even works part-time as a security guard, but still can’t afford to rent a home. He calls his sister and his 94-year-old mother sometimes, but they avoid talking about his life. “They are disappointed by my lifestyle,” he says. “I was just a loner. I was the youngest when my father died, I decided to leave (home), and that isolation has lasted throughout my life.”

Fragmentation of families and the weakening of community support contribute to the isolation of homeless people in particular. But there is more.

“Caricatured narratives” drive the debate on poverty and homelessness in America, according to Dr Alston. The rich are seen as “industrious, entrepreneurial, patriotic, and the drivers of economic success”. The poor are “wasters, losers and scammers”.

“As long as you have the mindset that we’re all on our own, it becomes possible that when my own brother falls off the cliff, I’m able to say, ‘Well, he had the same opportunities as me. He’s failed, he has to cope with it,’ instead of saying, ‘I can’t let that happen. I’ve got to do something.’”

In Los Angeles, he found that the objective for the local authorities was to raise the standard of Skid Row, an area less than a square kilometre but containing many hundred homeless, to that of a Syrian refugee camp.

“One of the richest countries in the world, and we’re aiming to meet the standards of a Syrian refugee camp for a large population in one of our richest cities,” he says. “It is sort of stunning.”

Sources: The Straits Times/Asia News Network, by Nirmal Ghosh who is The Straits Times ’US Bureau Chief.

Related:

Trump's First Year 


President Donald Trump has had a hostile relationship with the media, frequently attacking it and other pillars of the US system including the Department of Justice and the courts.

A year on, Trump's US still deeply divided

 

 Trump, the master media manipulator

 

US lawmakers in bid to end shutdown stalemate

 

Trump's dealmaker image tarnished by US government shutdown

Mass crowds rally for anti-Trump Women's Marches across US | AFP ...


China raps US for 'Cold War mentality' in defence strategy - ASEAN ...

Beijing: China has denounced the United States government for what it calls its “Cold War and zero-sum mentality” in its latest national defence strategy, which named China and Russia as “revisionist powers” that “seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models”.

 

Related post:

 

Greener pastures: Wang at his company’s headquarters in Shanghai. The successful Silicon Valley alumni was lured back to China by the pro...

Saturday, 20 January 2018

STRATA Property insights - Serious on strata


Important issues and frequently asked questions


STRATA-type property is and has been all the rage. It is also expected to be "the living model" if not already.

Whether in cosmopolitan cities or suburban fringes, and as space becomes "in want" and prices hike, we feature our final article on strata-related property highlighting pertinent questions frequently asked to which Chris Tan (CT) gives input on.

Q: What should one look out for in the S&P before deciding on buying a particular strata-titled residential property?

CT: Buying a strata title property is not just buying a property but buying into a community living regulated by law. As a buyer, you are not only responsible for your very own unit but also the common property within the development too.

There is an ongoing obligation to pay the monthly service charges and sinking fund until the day you sell the same to another owner.

Besides the S&P Agreement, you are normally expected to sign the Deed of Mutual Covenants too, that regulates the relationship of the many owners within the same development with house rules vis-a-vis the prescribed by-laws under the Strata Management Act. In addition to the compliance with these rules, you are also expected to participate in the management of the common property at the Annual General Meeting as well as the Extraordinary General Meeting.

In the completion of the S&P Agreement, do ensure that the seller has no more outstanding charges and sinking funds owing the management and that the deposits paid are to be adjusted accordingly.

Q: Can you please explain further on 'share units' of strata-titled property? How does this affect a residential strata-titled property owner or what is the relation between the owner and the share units?

CT: Share unit has always been there in strata living as it will be stated in the strata title upon its issuance. It is now capturing the limelight, given that it is now the basis to be contributed into the maintenance charges and not the usual rate psf of the size of your main parcel.

There are different 'weightages' for the main parcel, the accessory parcel and the type of usage to make up the various elements of the share unit.

Suffice to say that two units of apartments of the exact same size might have different share unit allocation, if one has more accessory parcels than the other, or one is of commercial usage while the other is residential.

Q: What are some current and common issues faced by owners of strata-titled residential property and how would these be best settled?

CT: Issue 1: Contribution to service charges and sinking funds from the owners have always been done on the total size (in sf.) of the main parcel. Under the new regime since June 2015, it should now be based on per share unit instead.

Share unit is a concept that takes into account the size and the usage (of different allocated weight) of both the main parcel as well as the accessory parcel. It's stated clearly in the strata title when it is issued. It is also the basis of voting by poll if so requested in any General Meeting. Share unit is therefore now the basis of both contribution and control as opposed to just control in the past.

In theory, it should be a fair method for all. The issues are:

(i) Some strata owners find themselves paying more than before while some strata owners now pay less; and

(ii) The Share unit allocation under the previous legal regime was a result of consultation and discretion and not as transparently guided under the new law. It is a difficult process and to adjust again, particularly when the strata titles have been issued, will be tedious.

Issue No. 2: In Phased Development there is now a requirement to file the Schedule of Parcels (SOP) stating clearly the total share units to be offered under the entire development before one can proceed to sell. It therefore includes the later phases of a development that will only be developed in the future.

The issue is that this SOP can only be adjusted if we can get 100% of the owners to agree or it is a direction from the authority.

There will be no flexibility accorded to the developer who might want to change the SOP for the feasibility or sustainability of the development, taking into account the new circumstances of the future, in the best interest of the entire development.

Another related issue would be on the contribution of the allocated share units by the developer for yet to be developed phase in the maintenance of the common property already built and delivered.

Q: Any other 'surprises' or areas of concern that many strata-titled residential property owners are unaware of until after purchase of such residents?

CT: Don't be surprised if the property does not come with an allotted car park, although it is a norm to expect a car park to come with the unit. It is not always the case.

Q: Like many busy owners of a strata-titled property who do not have the time to sit in at resident's meetings with the management body – many have simply 'gone with the flow' of things as 'questions/disputes' require time for discussion.

What would you recommend for busy individuals who have 'no time' to attend such meetings but can only look at the annual/bi-annual strata/building management statements/financial reports? What should one keep an eye out for in these financial statements?

Why is it important to attend these meetings; what would owners be losing out on by not attending and being an 'active owner'?

CT: It is a regulated community living and participation is expected of every owner.

Although many have chosen to be passive, you need to participate or run the risk of letting major decisions lay in the hands of the active few.

You should keep an eye to ensure that the charges collected are well spent, that collection should always be monitored and the performance of the appointed property manager.

Also, understand your rights and obligations as a strata owner is important, and ensure that you and your neighbors are equally aware of the same too.

Q: As a tenant, and not the owner of the 'parcel' – are they bound to all the By-laws?

CT: The by-laws, additional by-laws and amendment of such additional by-laws made by the Management Body shall not only bind the owners but also the tenants, chargess, lessees and occupiers.

Q: Any other important issues that you would like to highlight to readers of theSun?

CT: Moving forward, strata living will be the preferred way of community living. Take a keen interest to learn and understand this living model in order to get the most out of it.

There are many more frequently asked questions, especially on management bodies, by-laws and leakage and defects. Answers to these can be found in Chris Tan's Owner's Manual & Guidebook.

Follow our property column next Friday for more insights on the market in the local scene.

Source: Thesundaily

Tuesday, 16 January 2018

PTMP: Losses making fashion company in Penang Undersea Tunnel Project


Filepic: PenangPropertyTalk

Did the Penang Govt do a "bait and switch" on the Penang people?

That was the question posed by MCA deputy president Datuk Seri Dr Wee Ka Siong after it was revealed that a local fashion company has been identified as the shareholder of a special purpose vehicle (SPV) for the RM6.3bil Penang undersea tunnel project.

He questioned how the DAP-led Penang state government can claim that it is normal for a loss-making local fashion company to be suddenly involved in building a complicated multi-billion undersea tunnel as its first project as part of normal buisness diversification process.

Shareholdings disclosure of the company on Bursa Malaysia. Pic: mca.org.my
Shareholdings disclosure of the company on Bursa Malaysia. Pic: mca.org.my

Shareholdings disclosure of the company on Bursa Malaysia. Pic: mca.org.myShareholdings disclosure of the company on Bursa Malaysia. Pic: mca.org.my

"Taking aside the fact that the fashion company has reported losses in each of the past 3 financial quarters and their last financial statement submitted to Bursa Malaysia on 29 Nov 2017 showed that the company had cash balances of RM1,7 million and short-term loans of RM16.5 million, I believe the Penang Government is completely missing the point.

"The main point is that the Penang Govt had reassured and promised to the people of Penang in March 2013 when the project was awarded that the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) company had strong financial backing of RM4.6 billion and had deep experience in construction," Wee highlighted, in a statement posted on MCA's website.

He points out that five years later there was nothing to show except for the millions spent on uncompleted feasibility studies.

“Did the DAP government lie to the public and made a bait and switch?" he asked.

Meanwhile, political analyst Datuk Eric See-Toh has revealed that the project never awarded on open tender.

"This is an interesting development as the project was never awarded based on Open Tender as DAP frequently claims.

"It was done via a Request for Proposal (RFP) exercise where a company was then selected for further negotiations before agreement signing," he noted in a recent Facebook posting.

"The Penang Government should release the minutes of why the winner was selected and why others were rejected," he urged the DAP-led Penang government to give a proper explanation over how this could have happened.

This is important, he stressed as the result has clearly led to "such lop-sided terms that is in favour of the contractor and at the expense of the people of Penang" which is the reason for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigation now. "Allowing many to participate in an open RFP is not the most important question but how and on what basis the final party was selected and the negotiations after that," he added.

"Taking aside the fact that the fashion company has reported losses in each of the past 3 financial quarters and their last financial statement submitted to Bursa Malaysia on 29 Nov 2017 showed that the company had cash balances of RM1,7 million and short-term loans of RM16.5 million, I believe the Penang Government is completely missing the point.

"The main point is that the Penang Govt had reassured and promised to the people of Penang in March 2013 when the project was awarded that the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) company had strong financial backing of RM4.6 billion and had deep experience in construction," Wee highlighted, in a statement posted on MCA's website.

He points out that five years later there was nothing to show except for the millions spent on uncompleted feasibility studies.

“Did the DAP government lie to the public and made a bait and switch?" he asked.

Meanwhile, political analyst Datuk Eric See-Toh has revealed that the project never awarded on open tender.

"This is an interesting development as the project was never awarded based on Open Tender as DAP frequently claims.

"It was done via a Request for Proposal (RFP) exercise where a company was then selected for further negotiations before agreement signing," he noted in a recent Facebook posting.

"The Penang Government should release the minutes of why the winner was selected and why others were rejected," he urged the DAP-led Penang government to give a proper explanation over how this could have happened.

This is important, he stressed as the result has clearly led to "such lop-sided terms that is in favour of the contractor and at the expense of the people of Penang" which is the reason for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigation now.

"Allowing many to participate in an open RFP is not the most important question but how and on what basis the final party was selected and the negotiations after that," he added.


"According to a MACC source, the investigation was zeroing in on the tender process and appointment of the company to carry out the feasibility study for the (Penang Tunnel) project." said a report today.

This is an interesting development as the project was never awarded based on Open Tender as DAP frequently claims.

It was done via a Request for Proposal (RFP) exercise where a company was then selected for further negotiations before agreement signing.

The Penang Government should release the minutes of why the winner was selected and why others were rejected as well as the minutes of the attendees and what was discussed during the negotiations with the winner prior to the final agreement that led to such lop-sided terms that is in favour of the contractor and at the expense of the people of Penang.

Allowing many to participate in an open RFP is not the most important question but how and on what basis the final party was selected and the negotiations after that.

Eric See-To.
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/…/undersea-tunnel-probe-m…/
Here's an explanation between RFP and Request for Tender/Quote and other methods:
http://thoughtbubble.com.au/…/whats-the-difference-between…/

LikeShow more reactions
Comment


Mak

Source: Malaysian Digest: http://www.malaysiandigest.com/


Related Links:

Politicians on MACC radar over tunnel payoffs - Nation


“There were politicians who received a few hundred thousand ringgit and those who took millions.
“Investigators are digging in on the extent of the misconduct and where the payments took place.
“It is believed that this is also related to the two land swaps done as payment for the feasibility study,” said a source, who declined to elaborate.

Feasibility study cost just doesn't add up, says Wee - Nation

Undersea project: Fashion apparel just an investor not contractor, says Lim

More arrests likely in undersea tunnel probe - Nation

Related posts:

In troubled waters: An artist’s impression showing where the tunnel project will start on the island.   Land swap under...