The rule of thumb for religious ethics

Someone named Publicola wrote to the great Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, asking: If a Christian is starving and on the point of death, and they see food in an idol’s temple, may they eat it?

Augustine replied: ‘It is better to reject it with Christian fortitude’.

This same Augustine who wrote the magisterial City of God was also the one who penned:

‘That all superstition of pagans and heathens should be annihilated is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims!’

As we compare Augustine to some of today's well-known leaders of religions, we can notice the same worldview that leads to extremism.

We humans have natural tendency to create imaginary divine laws.

How often we hear religious teachers say, "This is God's laws, we must follow out of gratitude"?

Perhaps the rule of thumb to discern what is divine or not is whether the rule celebrates tangible signs of human flourishing such as life, joy, friendship, self-responsibility and social bond.

Dying from starvation by rejecting available food is against the celebration of life.

Annihilating other widely accepted religious beliefs is against the celebration of joy and friendship.

Extremism that raises racial or religious wall to separate people is against healthy social bond.

As Kenan Malik observes: "Moral questions may not have objective answer but they do have rational ones, answers rooted in a rationality that emerges out of social need."

Doctrines and religious teachings have to be thought through this rule of thumb. If not, one would go down the path of extremism like what is happening around today.

How this rule is connected to divinity is up to each religion's interpretation.

The point is that, this rule of thumb at least sets the boundary where teachings that are outside of it is probably not divine.

I can't imagine a divine commandment in the present era that requires people to go against life, joy, friendship, self-responsibility and social bond. 

Contemporary books introducing any particular global religion testify to this. They assume this rule of thumb and condemn extremism or fanatical interpretation of that religion. True version of their religion, they say, is against death, despair, enmity, self-recklessness and disintegrate society. They all promote their respective religion as celebrating the rule of thumb.

Request For Proposal differentiates PTMP from other mega projects

There are some misconceptions that the PTMP is the same as other mega projects that should be reviewed, if not cancelled. Some have even lobbied all the way to the Prime Minister Office and the Council of Eminent Persons against PTMP.

These misconceptions are based on the wrong understanding about PTMP. It is therefore important for the public to know the uniqueness of PTMP in order to discern properly.

What sets the PTMP apart from other mega projects is the use of an open tender process known as Request For Proposal (RFP). The RFP is a type of open tender that allows for competitive evaluation among different innovative proposals before a decision is made.

The RFP differentiates PTMP from other projects, such as the RM81 billion East Coast Rail Link (ECRL), that do not use open tender. 

Regular open tender and RFP

There are several types of open tender. Each type is employed according to the scale and limitation of the project. I will only elaborate on the tender processes related to PTMP.

Let's say you are hungry and desire for a burger. Regular open tender is like going to the pasar malam and coming back with the cheapest burger.

RFP on the other hand is like holding a contest, and inviting all the pasar malam burger stalls to participate. The stall that makes the tastiest burger and at the best price - but not necessarily the cheapest - gets the prize.

The main difference between the two is that price is the primary consideration in regular open tender whereas other factors come into play in RFP.

RFP allows bidders to offer their own proposal, with room for innovation. This tendering method was first employed by Penang state government in 2010 to develop landmark and restore heritage sites.

Goh Ban Lee, a former associate professor at Universiti Sains Malaysia, has this to say about RFP:

“I find the RFP idea very refreshing and interesting. If it is left to state planners or architects, it will only be one design. Generally, planners working in the civil service, as government officers, follow the normal procedures and plans and rarely take risks. However, by opening it up to the private sector, it will provide a myriad of ideas and, with competition, the bidders strive to give their best shot — and the sky is the limit to their innovation... This is new thinking, it... gives the state government the pick of the best proposals. Ultimately, the state government decides and picks on the best options offered.”

Closed and open RFP

RFP can be either closed or open. Closed RFP is like holding a contest where you only invite one burger stall to participate.  No need to guess who's the winner. No alternative to be considered or compared.

Open RFP, on the other hand, is an invitation to any one in the market to bid or tender for the job. It is competitive, as the submitted proposals will be evaluated with alternative.

Double open RFP for PTMP

Penang state government employed open RFP twice for PTMP. Let's call this double open RFP.

Double open RFP is like, you want to open a restaurant, but first you hold a contest to choose a restaurant consultant to advise you what food to serve. Say the winning consultant's choice is burger. Next you hold a second contest to choose the chef who can prepare the best burger.

For PTMP, the first open RFP was conducted to appoint a consultant to prepare an initial study of building an integrated transport infrastructure in Penang. Many criteria were set, one of which is that the project has to have a funding mechanism.

The first open RFP began on 12 March 2010 and ended on 30 April 2010. There were six companies that applied. They were AECOM Perunding Sdn Bhd, Melewar Metro Penang Sdn Bhd, Jurutera Zaaba Sdn Bhd, Systra MVA Singapore Pte Ltd, Perunding Trafik Klasik Sdn Bhd, and AJC Planning Consultants Sdn Bhd.

On 27 April 2011, the RM3.2 million project was awarded to AJC Planning Consultants Sdn Bhd, which was set up by Halcrow, Singapore Cruise Centre, and AJC. The cost was shared between the Northern Corridor Implementation Authority (NCIA) and Penang state government at RM1.5 million and RM1.7 million respectively. The consultant produced a recommendation with estimated cost of RM27 billion.

The second open RFP was carried out from 15 August 2014 to 16 December 2014, and was then extended to February 2015, looking for the Project Delivery Partner (PDP) to implement PTMP. 

Fifty-five local and overseas companies expressed interest, with six submitted proposal through the open RFP. Among them were Gamuda, IJM Corp, MMC Corp Bhd, Scomi Group Bhd, and WCT. The consultancy and audit firm KPMG was appointed to provide independent evaluation of the six proposals for their technical expertise and funding model. 

Based on KPMG's evaluation, on 14 August 2015, SRS Consortium (formed by Gamuda, Loh Phoy Yen Holdings, and Ideal Property Development) was appointed as the PDP.

SRS Consortium was selected after it went through the competitive open RFP.

Open RFP is internationally recognised as open tender

Despite the open and transparent nature of the RFP used in PTMP, there are deliberate allegations stating that the RFP is not open tender.

For example, Lim Mah Hui and Ahmad Hilmy wrote that, “In RFP, bidders are not placed on a level playing field. The criteria for bidding under the RFP are not transparent or necessarily consistent. Clearly, RFPs are not open tenders...”

They also argued that “the best way to evaluate open tenders is for a government to follow the guidelines established by the World Bank,” implying that the World Bank does not practice RFP.

They are mistaken. As mentioned above, the RFP used in PTMP is open tender. Moreover, World Bank itself uses RFP and even has its own standard guidelines for RFP. This method is used by World Bank for its global meetings management programs, data center, digital entrepreneurship, and many others.

Open RFP is sometimes used interchangeably with open tender by other international institutions such as the United Nations. In the United Nations Development Programme's procurement notice, “open tender” is bracketed as “RFP.” (See the photo below.)

"Open request for proposal tender" is similarly employed by a Queensland government's project and the National University of Singapore Society.
 

Whether it is Penang's PTMP, World Bank's guidelines, United Nations' procurement notices, Australia's project, or Singapore's institution, open RFP is internationally recognised as open tender.

Lim and Ahmad have therefore misinformed the public. Their misinformation has been taken up and disseminated by others such as the Consumers Association of Penang.

Both Lim and Ahmad may have preferred the regular open tender over against open RFP because of their concern for the cost. They want the cheapest transport infrastructure. But given our local road condition, geography, socioeconomic outlook, and other considerations, the cheapest is not necessarily the best for Penang.

Neither is the most expensive proposal the best. Therefore, the open RFP was necessary to enable the state government to evaluate different proposals with different estimated cost and suggestion, based on independent review, to decide the best for Penang.

As a competitive and transparent tendering process, open RFP allows for innovative solution at a reasonable cost. This sets apart PTMP from other mega projects.

Light Rail Transit is safer than on-ground tram

The Penang state government has adopted an elevated Light Rail Transit (LRT) system instead of an on-ground tram system for the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP).

One of the reasons the state government abandoned the previously proposed on-ground tram system is that it poses a danger to other road users, pedestrians and infrastructure.

Statistics from the Australian Transport Safety Victoria record a rise in incidents of tram collisions involving people, infrastructure and road vehicles of 85%, 175% and 17% respectively over the past five years from 2013 to 2017.

In that period, 192 people were hurt, 40 structures were damaged and 4,445 vehicles crashed.

Accidents happen due to various causes. But banning all privately owned cars from the roads is utterly impractical. No credible government in the world has attempted that.

While governments should constantly improve road safety for private car users, they should also build a public transport infrastructure which has the least danger of accidents occurring. Thousands of people use public transport every day. Safety is non-negotiable. A responsible government must take this into consideration when choosing which public transport system to build.

It is therefore surprising that highly educated individuals would lobby and write a series of articles demanding that the Penang government replace the elevated LRT with trams.

One of them who is pursuing doctorate even bizarrely compared the safety of a mode of public transport (tram) to a highway. That is like comparing the safety of an escalator (a type of lift) to that of a building. I am not sure what conclusion should be made from it, so if an escalator (or tram) is safer, then we should just build an escalator and not build the building (or highway)?

It is even more surprising that there are local councilors, responsible for ensuring the well-being of the people, would persuade the state government to implement on-ground tram and stir up public opinion towards public transport system which poses more risk to the people.

If the Transport Safety Victoria statistics on tram collisions are of any indication, the PTMP’s elevated LRT would pose less risk to the public than an on-ground tram system.

When choosing a public transport system, we need to evaluate cost, feasibility, foreseeable risk, public safety and other factors to reach the best balance. Public safety is an essential factor that should not be compromised.

A government that willingly spends RM8.4 billion on a safer transport system for the people is better and more responsible than one that spends less but builds a riskier system that endangers the public.

The Genesis of Penang Transport Master Plan

The Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) has an elaborate genesis. There are distorted versions being spread around by certain groups to call for endless review for the project. 

This has delayed PTMP's implementation unnecessarily while daily Penangites continue to suffer traffic jam and Penang continues to be deprived of a much needed infrastructural development. It is therefore important to learn about PTMP's beginning, to avoid being deceived.

 

PTMP has its root in the state government’s 2009 initiative to establish the Penang Transport Council, which included 10 NGOs as members. This then led to the state government's opening a Request-For-Proposal (RFP) tender to invite interested organisation to bid for the role to prepare a study. The open tender received six submissions.

An international team comprised of Malaysia’s AJC Planning, UK’s Halcrow and Singapore’s Cruise Centre was selected. The cost of the study was RM3.2 million. The cost was split between the Northern Corridor Implementation Authority (NCIA) and Penang state government at RM1.5 million and RM1.7 million respectively.

With the study as a guide, the state government had called for another RFP from August until December 2014 with the purpose to appoint a Project Delivery Partner (PDP). The open tender was further extended to February 2015.

The appointed PDP will manage the implementation of the PTMP projects together with the state government – which means, both the PDP and state government will conduct open tenders for all contractors and manage them to ensure timely delivery of the projects and they are within budget.

Also, the RFP allowed bidders to propose alternative plans. With that, a total of 55 local and foreign companies expressed interest, with six different proposals submitted.

The proposals were evaluated by the globally reputable audit and advisory firm KPMG, with head office in the Netherlands. The competitive evaluation criteria ranges from the required technical expertise to financial and business model to fund the project. 

After a thorough review of all the alternatives, the state government based on KPMG’s evaluation appointed SRS Consortium with its RM27 billion proposal in August 2015 as PDP to implement the PTMP.

A further review was carried out with workshops and consultation attended by state and federal agencies and authorities. Changes were added to the PDP proposal then and formed the present PTMP with estimated cost of RM46 billion. But the review did not stop there. The Penang state government had subsequently engaged Universiti Sains Malaysia as peer review consultant for PTMP.

In addition to all the reviews, the state government has conducted more than 30 official engagement sessions and seminars within a span of two years to collect feedback and comments from the public and various stakeholders in Penang. This was way before any approval was granted for the proposal. 

The state earnestly carried out the engagements openly, without being legally required to do so. From 2015 until August 2018, there were 965 engagement sessions conducted, involving 17,000 stakeholders.

To summarise, the present PTMP was decided after alternatives were considered and international studies, professional reviews, and public engagements were conducted.

It is either a joke or malicious to accuse the state government of being ‘closed-minded’ with regards to the PTMP. The state government’s handling of the PTMP so far has been open, transparent, and international.

An expert review is an expert review, regardless whether it pleases certain group or not. There are groups that only acknowledge views pleasing to them as “expert” and credible. Views that are alternate to theirs are dismissed. This is ironic as some of them accuse the state government for not being open to alternatives.

Some of the groups produce their own so-called alternative proposal which has no financing plan and thus is not feasible, to begin with. Nonetheless, they still persistently ask the government to spend according to their demand, such as conducting further reviews by international experts, without providing any funding strategy on how this will be financed. How is this sustainable?

Pakatan Harapan government reduced inflation by 84%

Malaysians are eager to know what has Pakatan Harapan (PH) government has accomplished since May 9, while the opposition has gone on its propaganda spree, telling the world that the government has not improved the country’s economy. Latest being MCA’s Wee Ka Siong who condescendingly urged the finance minister Lim Guan Eng to work his magic.

In general, Malaysians are patient and understand that the new government needs time to improve the economy. No economist or politician can fix the RM1 trillion indebted economy overnight or over a year or two.

The past six months, however, have shown signs of significant improvement. For one, our inflation rate has been reduced by 84%. The average inflation rate from June to October 2017 was 3.6%, which is very high compared to the same period this year, at 0.56%.

Figure 1: Comparison of average inflation rate in the period of June to October 2017 and June to October 2018.

Average inflation rate under BN government (June-October 2017)	Average inflation rate under PH government (June-October 2018)	Difference
3.6%	0.56%	-84%

The current opposition, the then government, has engineered an economy model that had confiscated much from the people, the dark side of the so-called “Najibnomics.” Let me explain.

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) introduced in April 2015 had enabled the government to tax every single transaction in the country, except certain zero-rated and exempted products. By the end of the year, the BN government has collected RM27 billion. The following year, GST has channelled RM41 billion to the government. 

How GST works is that the more expensive goods and services become, the more collection will be made. 6% of a RM100 item is RM6, while 6% of a RM150 item is RM9. In order to collect more, prices need to be inflated. Government can manipulate prices in the economy to extract more tax money. "By a continuing process of inflation,” as John Maynard Keynes wrote, “government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens."

But how to gradually inflate prices in the economy?

One way to do that is to make volatile an essential commodity. When the price of that commodity becomes unpredictable, the prices in the economy will increase to curb losses or anticipate higher production cost. So, what is that commodity in Malaysia? Petrol.

That is why five months before the introduction of GST, the BN administration ended oil subsidies, allowing market forces to make volatile the price of that commodity.

The plan worked, the volatility of petrol prices gradually increased inflation. By February 2016, our inflation rate hit 4.2%, which later overtaken by 4.9% in March 2017, the highest inflation increase since 2009. GST collection in 2017 was RM44 billion, highest since its implementation. Citizens’ wealth was confiscated secretly and unobserved.

Of course, the volatility of petrol prices is not the sole factor for inflation. Other factors such as currency devaluation had a role too. The point is that the volatility of petrol, an essential commodity, exposed our economy to high destability risk.

When we look back the past five years, it seems that inflation was an imperative in Najibnomics. The Nobel Laureate Friedrich von Hayek is right,“Economic history is largely a history of inflation, usually inflation that is engineered by government for the gain of government.” Malaysia’s average inflation rate from 2013 to 2017 was higher than our neighbours and some advanced economies.

Figure 2: Comparison of average inflation rate from 2013 to 2017 among several countries.

Country	Average inflation rate (2013-2017)
Brunei	-0.2%
Singapore	0.68%
Thailand	0.82%
Japan	0.88%
Germany	0.92%
United States of America	1.32%
Malaysia	2.65%

The downside of inflation is not confined only to confiscation of people’s money by the government but also increases welfare spending and reduces the value of our savings and Employees Provident Fund (EPF). This is horrifying as we work our whole life with the hope to enjoy retirement but only to realise that the value of our savings and EPF have shrunk.

The PH government’s policy has managed to temporarily slow down inflation. By fixing the price of RON95 and diesel, the new government has reduced the volatility of prices in the economy.

On top of that, the switch from GST to Sales and Services Tax (SST) with the three-month tax-less interval has reduced tax collection and thus increased people’s disposable income by RM22 billion. These two measures have stabilised the market and show a drastic difference between the inflation rates before and after the 14th general election. 

Figure 3: Comparison of inflation rate between before and after the 14th general election (GE14).

Before GE14	After GE14
January 2.7%	June 0.8%
February 1.4%	July 0.9%
March 1.3%	August 0.2%
April 1.4%	September 0.3%
May 1.8%	October 0.6%
Average: 1.72%	Average: 0.56%

PH has proven its ability to stabilize the economy, reduce inflation, protects our savings and EPF, and abolished Najibnomics. “Low and stable inflation,” as noted by Ben Bernanke, “is an important accomplishment that will continue to bring significant benefits.”

Notwithstanding those who cannot see the improvement, it is nothing short of magical to have our inflation rate reduced by 84% in the past five months by the new government.