The latest talked-about topic these days in Malaysia is the proposal for the construction of a 100-storey tower in the heart of KL city, near the historical Merdeka Stadium.

Unveiled during the 2011 budget last Friday, it has since sparked debate on the purpose, the cost and the necessity of another skyscrape. Many deemed this to be another white elephant, a way for Najib to add a notch onto his bedpost, just as his predecessor, Mahathir did with the set-up of Cyberjaya, Putrajaya and other mega projects.

Quoted here,

“Mr Najib said that such projects exemplify the spirit of ‘Malaysia Boleh’ or ‘Malaysia Can!’, a national campaign conceived by former premier Mahathir Mohamad, a huge advocate of mega projects.”

When faced with backlash from both opposition parties as well as most members of the public, Najib went on to add that

“…the rationale for the Warisan Merdeka tower was similar to the one behind the iconic twin Petronas Towers, in that it would serve as a symbol of a modern and developed Malaysia.

He stressed that the project would also have a “multiplier effect” on the economy and help drive it forward, in addition to providing an attractive commercial centre for Bumiputera and non-Bumiputera businesses alike.

“This project is not a waste (of resources) but will bring benefit,” he said.

Najib dismissed out-of-hand Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) criticisms that such expenditure was “irresponsible” by pointing out how well-received predecessor Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s megaprojects had been despite opposition attacks.

“When Tun Dr Mahathir built the Penang Bridge, they (the opposition) attacked it too, but now the people of Penang themselves are asking for a second bridge,” he said, adding that the former premier’s decision to build the Petronas Towers had faced similar problems.”

See full story here.

There are some things I’d like to put forth (and would like some answers, if possible) – if only he goes around reading blogs and especially mine (would he have any reason to?) – to the good Premier of Malaysia. Sometimes I do wonder…does he think that projects like this are as simple and clear-cut as finding out what diet pills work best?

Question 1
If this was a PNB project and if funding for the construction is to be come from PNB, why was the idea proposed during a discussion and unveiling of a federal budget which is clearly a government action plan? Would it have been better for the CEO/Chairman/Director of PNB to make such a proposal themselves? Since when is the Premier of a country a spokesperson of a corporate company and for a plan as this? Perhaps it is not such a simple case of “It’s not my plan, it’s not government funding” as he would want us to believe (and most of us are already sceptical).

Question 2
Because of the location of the proposed structure, PNB needs to justify its reasons for wanting to kickstart a construction project of this magnitute. There are environmental concerns to note – the city can only hold so much and already with its current infrastructure as well as population, it is clear that it cannot hold more without any consequences (floods, heat/air/noise pollution, poor waste and traffic management, etc). While it is true that PNB funding this project would imply that they are not accountable to anyone, that is hardly the case as construction of this magnitute does have an impact of city dwellers and workers.

Question 3
The lack in transparency is a cause for concern. If the project has been well-thought out, planned and is “clean”, why is PNB’s group CEO tight lipped about the funding of the project (see story here)? Or is someone going to dish the usual “they don’t owe anyone anything”? Trouble with that excuse is that it’s just bad business ethnics. Business are accountable to everyone for their actions, choices and decisions, especially with projects that have an impact on the community as this one.

Question 4
The comparision to the Penang Bridge and the KLIA is not logical or rational. These are structures that serve a definite and real purpose. We are not talking about a structure that will help ease the congestion of traffic in an area or allow people to come in easily from all parts of the world. In fact, a 100-storey building may just end up doing the opposite. Imagine the amount of workers needed on site, the waste that is churned from these workers and the construction itself, trucks moving in and out with building materials…even in the early phase of construction, this building will add to the congestion of traffic.

Question 5
The Petronas Twin Towers. Sorry but I never approved of the project in the first place. Yes, the building is iconic, yes the structure is pretty but other than that fact, what else is it? When I left KL, rumours had it that the building was still mostly unoccupied as the rental was just too high plus with the threat of terrorism constantly looming (think Sept 11), some companies prefered the “comfort and security” of low-rise buildings. Parking at the Twin Towers is expensive. Shopping there is expensive. Eating there is expensive. Heck, everything about the Towers is expensive. How has the Tower benefitted the average Malaysian who is struggling to make ends meet? Also, considering how commercial the city already is, do we really need another “commercial” structure?

Question 6
A clarification must be made to the real definition of “Malaysia Can” or “Malaysia Boleh” and what it takes to be this phrase in ever sense possible. For a while now, I have observed a bad habit politicians and the media have when it comes to pandering this phrase. They are quick to draw attention to individuals who may have been born in Malaysia or have Malaysian parents but were educated overseas and later gone on to live in their current nations. These people may not have worked or contributed tax in this country and some may have never even visited Malaysia before. So how is this an example of “Malaysia(n) Boleh”? Have we ever drawn light to the teacher praised and honored by her students after 30 over years of service? Or the single mother who works day and night to provide a decent education for all her children? What of the many of us who studied, worked and lived in this country for a good part of our lives – even our entire lives? Is this not the true spirit of “Malaysia Boleh”? If PNB wants to help (and make money in return), if Najib wants projects that will “exemplify the spirit of Malaysia Can”, why not invest in human capital by pumping money into research centers for sciences like biotechnology, biomechanics, genetics; human capital through scholarships and research grants, promotion of work-life balance and good work culture? Isn’t that a more lasting legacy?

…

At the end of the day, the story will be the same as before. A politician will propose, then deny, then promise only to fall through. And we always fall for it. Each time.