The 43billion Question

Metrostroy and Metrowagonmash. Who is this? This is the contractor that built the Moscow Metro. I was watching the History Channel the other day, and the program showed how the Moscow Metro was constructed. Not only is the system functional it is also aesthetically pleasing.

I suggest if the government wants to open its bid to people who may be interested in building the RM43,000,000,000 or more KL MRT system talk to them.

The M&M has got the experience and the technology. Gamuda or MMC know how to do the MRT the conventional way- by teaming up with another foreign partner. Let's cut this middleman stuff and employ M&M directly. Better still, open the tender to international bidders who have the technology and experience to offer us competitive bids.

If contractors come from non English speaking countries, ask them to send somebody who can come and speak English. Just don't ask a Perimekar copy cat who then employs some foreigner( usually the female kind) to act as interpreter. Let's do an honest deal for once.

The problem started when you want to concentrate everything in KL. Now you must do a traffic and people dispersal system. It's ok then- things were already done and we have to live with it. But let's correct the problem by doing the right thing.

I am still struggling to reconcile this: we take away subsidies and save some RM 750,000,000 and that can be used to finance the RM43billion MRT in KL? The pundits seem over overzealous to point out that it was Gamuda who suggested that savings can be made from taking away subsidies and because of pointing that out, Gamuda goes one notch up to deserve the award of the contract? Are these people being paid by Gamuda or what?

There's one catch- Gamuda and MMC are interested only to do the tunneling contract worth RM 14 billion and the hardware side of the MRT. They don't want to operate the line? Who operates the line then?

I think it's better to invite bidders who can offer us the whole package- build the system for us and operate the system for a number of years using local talent.

How can Gamuda be so cocksure of getting this project and has even started to survey and soil test works? It has been telling everyone that it has an 80-85 per cent chance of clinching the job, which could start as soon as early 2011, and had commenced soil investigation and survey works to prepare the groundwork for the project.

Who are the appointed government consultants who have been asked to do the feasibility studies on the proposal by Gamuda? I am hoping it won't be the same consultant who was asked to evaluate who can do the double tracking from Gemas to Johor. The project was originally given to China Railways but then when the government appointed a project consultant to do a feasibility study, the job was given to China Harbours- which is a company specialising in the building of ports. I hear, what the consultant did was google the names of a few contractors and carried out a process of elimination. At the end of the day, China Railways who was approved by the Cabinet to do the double tracking was also eliminated.

Suppose the same tactic is used. Consultants can always Google any number of experienced MRT builders and then carry put a process of elimination taking into account all cock and bull stuff just to have these disqualified. At the end of the day, Gamuda and MMC, will come out smelling like roses.

How do we fund this massive project? Surely not from the paltry savings of RM 750 million savings from subsidy? The other way is to sell government bonds. Who wants to buy bonds from the government if a minister says our government can go bankrupt? We have to get AAA-rating for any papers to be issued.

Just what are the economic benefits will the people get other than gawking at the made-for exam points of saying that for every RM100 million that the government would spend on the MRT, RM25 million in annual economic benefits would be generated for the country in the next 50 years, including increased productivity, lower accident rates and lower carbon emissions.

Can increased productivity be gotten from a cheaper transport system and less carbon emissions achieved elsewhere?