A strategic scam of nuclear proportions

Dr Azmi Hassan, a Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies penned an article on 8 May 2010 in ‘Utusan Online’ (English version) called ‘Malaysia needs nuclear plant’.

According to him, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s interest to build a small-scale nuclear power plant was initially expressed during an official visit to South Korea in 2009. At that time, Dr. Azmi said that ‘many analysts viewed the statement as bold and full of risk’.

The article was difficult to follow but the thrust of Azmi’s piece seemed to be that ‘our leaders know best’, thus it is only logical that the people should heed their advice.

He said, “What needs to be taken into consideration is the approach to convince the people so that they can accept the idea. Such approach must be taken from now so that Malaysia will not be left too far behind.”

In addition, he said, “When the country’s leadership had stated very clearly that the use of nuclear energy as the best alternative, this make the job of convincing the public become easier.”

It is worrying that someone who claims to be a strategic planner should publish an article that is badly structured.

Even if English were not his first language, his sentence structure and arguments should follow a logical progression. Perhaps his message was unclear because he could offer no cogent argument in favour of nuclear power.

He displayed a naïve and complete trust in nuclear power. His absolute faith with the present nuclear technology is frightening and he goes so far as to suggest that, “…it is normal for the plant to be sited in housing and urban areas which has high population density”.

It would appear that his assessment for the need for nuclear power is not strong. Perhaps he is just showing his allegiance to Najib.

Sadly, Azmi has downplayed the seriousness of the many accidents, as well as the near misses and incidents.

He neglected to say that the Chernobyl disaster was not localised and that prevailing winds carried the nuclear contamination to neighbouring areas a few hundred miles away.

Azmi seemed thrilled at China building a nuclear plant every 3 months and he seemed impressed with France producing 80% of their electricity needs through nuclear power, unlike the USA which had fallen behind.

He failed though, to mention that in France, there is only one utility and one supplier and this stands in sharp contrast to the patchwork of operators and suppliers that exist in the United States.

If we were to adopt the French model, the problem with Malaysia is that, the one utility and one supplier will not be awarded work through a transparent tender process. In the end, we might end up with a repeat performance of what happened with the MRT project.

Azmi concluded his article in true sycophantic fashion, with “However, what is more important is the idea and view of the Prime Minister who exhibited strong political will in facing such sensitive issue like nuclear. This scenario must not be left to past by Malaysians because it is very important for the country’s future.”

So there we have it. Azmi stresses that nothing could be more important than a Prime minister who is uncompromising. Sadly, he also seems to suggest that the views of the public do not matter much, if at all.

Looks like if Najib wants ‘nuclear’, he will get ‘nuclear’. And we all thought he promised us a period of “public consultation”.