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?

Mindless urging for Penang’s return to Kedah

The three treaties archived in ‘A Collection of Treaties and Engagements with the Native Princes and States of Asia Concluded on Behalf of the East India Company by the British Governments in India’, published in 1812 are:

• Agreement with the King of Queda for the Cession of Prince of Wales Island in 1786.
• Treaty of Peace with King of Queda and for an annual Quit-rent for Prince of Wales' Island in 1791.
• Treaty with the King of Queda for Cession of Territory on the Coast of Queda, in November 1802.

These treaties were written and agreed upon under a very different legal and political setting from ours. Back then was colonial and monarchical era, while we are now living in a modern democratic nation-state.

Back then, Penang and Kedah formed one country, as read in the 1791 treaty:

“These nine articles are settled and concluded, and peace is made between Empetuan [sultan] and the English Company, Queda [Kedah] and Pooloo Pinang [Penang] shall be as one country.”

Back then, Perlis too was ruled by the same sultan, as the 1802 treaty addresses him in Article I as “Yeng de Pur Tuan of Purlees [Perlis] and Queda”.

Today, Penang, Perlis, and Kedah along with other states and territories form the Federation of Malaysia.

Therefore, the request from certain academics to implement the old treaties is a mindless confusion between times.

On one hand, this reveals their regressive mindset that continues to dwell in outdated treaties while others are moving forward in developing trade agreement that reflects modern nation-state reality.

On the other hand, it unveils the remarkable ignorance among these Malaysians that their very own citizenship is defined and guaranteed by the constitution, not by some archaic treaty. By urging the implementation of colonial treaties, they are requesting for the undoing of their own citizenship, bordering seditious attempt to subvert the constitution.

Some have argued that the colonial treaties are still effective because Penang continues to pay RM10,000 to Kedah.

The fact is that Penang has no constitutional duty to continue the payment. The state carries on this practice as a symbolic gesture, not as an obligation. The failure to note this distinction is another symptom of the regressive mindset that confuses the present time with that of the colonial period.

Even if, for argument’s sake, the demand to implement those archaic treaties is granted, the Article 2 of the 1802 treaty states that Penang is forever given to the British:

“Yeng de Per Tuan [sultan] agrees to give to the English Company, for ever, all that part of the sea coast that is [Seberang Perai]...”

Thus, should Penang be taken out from the federation to be given back to England? If those academics are consistent, they would have to argue for such arrangement instead of calling for Penang to be returned back to Kedah.

As if there is not enough mindless politicking going around the country, these academics, who are supposed to be the finest of minds, have just added more to it.