Why ART is not suitable for Penang?

(This post is taken from AnakPinang)

A certain group has been lobbying the state government to install the Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART) in Penang instead of the planned elevated Light Rail Transit (LRT).

The group presented its proposal using the same slides and video that the ART's producer CRRC showed to the chief minister Chow Kon Yeow.

Although a spokesperson of the group denied that they are salesmen of ART, they pitched their proposal to the state government, lauding the ART as an advanced system that "has been proven to solve traffic congestion" even though the system is only being tested on a 3-km route.

[https://www.metro-report.com/news/single-view/view/passenger-tests-begin-on-railless-train-electric-bus-in-zhuzhou.html]

The ART does not need track because it has tyres, like a bus. So, basically it is a bus that is designed like a tram. Therefore it shares many of the disadvantages of a bus-based transit system such as the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

There are at least three reasons why ART is not suitable for Penang.

Closure of road

ART needs a dedicated lane to be efficient. In installing ART (say along the proposed LRT route from the airport to Sia Boey), a whole stretch of road needs to be closed.

Traffic congestion is already happening during peak hour with the current roads. It becomes worse if there is a car breaking down or an accident.

Now, imagine one lane of a three-lane road is closed for ART and a car broke down in the middle lane. That leaves only one lane for cars, motorbikes, and lorries during peak hour - the worst nightmare for road users! Without the dedicated lane for ART or BRT, there are at least two lanes left for vehicles.

Elevated LRT does not need to close roads and does not disrupt present traffic.

Delay Traffic, Increase CO2 

Like BRT, the ART will come across road junctions and traffic lights. By stopping at these spots, the ART increases passengers' travelling time.

To reduce the increased travelling time, there is a suggestion to prioritise the ART by installing traffic light system that allows the ART to move first before other vehicles.

In this way the ART would be less inefficient. However, it also means delaying traffic for cars, motorbikes, and lorries.

By having other vehicles spending more time in traffic also means more carbon emission. Even though the ART uses electricity, it indirectly makes other vehicles produce more CO2, which defeats the very purpose of the ART's usage of electricity. Therefore, in term of being a green technology, the ART is self-contradicting.

Elevated LRT does not need to stop at junctions and traffic lights, or cause other vehicles to spend longer time on the road.

What about elevated ART? If an elevated infrastructure is to be built, then it might as well use LRT, which has a centralised coordinated system for optimum efficiency and better passenger comfort.

Track Problem 

ART does not have the conventional tram rail buried in the road. It uses a sensor system that recognises virtual rail, two white lines painted on the road.

[http://www.crrcgc.cc/en/g7389/s13996/t286142.aspx]

What happens if the sensor system breaks down? The dedicated lane cannot be used and the ART cannot operate.

Doesn't the elevated LRT's track have break down problems too? Yes, it does. The difference is that there is still a wide road for commuters to use with other vehicles when the LRT cannot operate. In the ART's case, the lane dedicated to ART's sensor system cannot be used when maintenance work is being carried out.

In other words, LRT track failure at least does not take up road space and leave it unusable by others.

ART's salesmen may claim that their system has proven to solve traffic congestion, but there are these deficiencies mentioned above that they need to address in their sales pitch. Moreover, the ART system does not have much of track record of successful implementation. To employ it is to subject Penangites to a guinea pig project.

AnakPinang is a civil group in Penang

Which mode of public transport for Penang?

What kind of public transport should Penang have? Elevated Light Rail Transit (LRT), on-ground trams, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), or others?

That’s the question some members of the public are deliberating as the state government works on the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP).

Many views have been shared from various perspectives, for instance on construction and operational cost, ridership, safety and traffic efficiency. What I find lacking is the passengers’ comfort. Which mode of public transport is the most comfortable?

I decided to find out by commuting using the different modes of public transport in the Klang Valley.

I started with the LRT to USJ 7, then I switched to the Sunway BRT until Setia Jaya where I transferred to KTM Komuter to KL Sentral. Then I took the monorail to Bukit Bintang to change to the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT).

So in one day, I experienced five different modes: LRT, BRT, Komuter, monorail and MRT.

Here’s my take on each mode, starting with which has the most comfortable seat.

Seats

KTM Komuter has the best seating arrangement. The chairs have good back support with headrests. None of the other modes has this. Komuter chairs are also cushioned and clean.

LRT, MRT and monorail have similar plastic seats while BRT uses regular Rapid bus sponge chairs.

Given that the BRT jerks a lot, its chair is the most uncomfortable and causes neck pain after a while. The KTM Komuter is also quite jerky but the chair’s high back support helps.

Ride comfort

In terms of ride comfort, BRT is the worst. The inertia when the bus accelerates and stops often throws standing passengers back and forth, and when the vehicle turns, we are thrown to the side, giving us an exercise in balancing skills.

Even though the BRT moves on a dedicated bus lane, there are many yellow transverse bars painted on the road which cause the BRT driver to slow down and make the ride bumpy at many points.

In comparison, LRT, MRT and monorail passengers don’t feel much of the inertia when the train accelerates and stops.

While both the LRT and MRT turn smoothly, the monorail tends to tilt when turning. Besides, the monorail does not seem well maintained. It looks dilapidated compared to advanced monorails such as BYD’s unmanned SkyRail launched in Yinchuan, China, early this year.

Passengers who like to read or work on their phone while commuting will like the LRT and MRT. They give the least discomfort to those who tend to get motion sickness.

The Komuter’s railway track makes the ride more jerky than the LRT and MRT but less so than the BRT. Compared to the Komuter and BRT, the LRT and MRT are a smooth ride.

The LRT carriage is slightly smaller than the MRT but it doesn’t lack in comfort.

Stations

MRT stations are the best. They are air-conditioned, clean, informative and spacious. The quality of MRT stations sets them apart from the rest (they are seemingly more expensive as well).

In term of efficiency, the KTM doesn’t score that well. The Komuter has the longest waiting time, at 35 minutes between trains to KL Sentral.

The KTM ticketing system requires passengers to buy a RM5 card that cannot be returned or refunded. The card costs more than my RM3 trip. None of the other transport modes requires such needless charges.

For Penang

I wouldn’t want the BRT as it’s jerky, bumpy and uncomfortable, like regular buses. We cannot have KTM Komuter as it takes up too much road space for railway tracks.

The best would be a combination of the MRT with Komuter seats installed and cosy underground stations. That would deliver a splendid commuting experience for Penang. However, it would also be too expensive.

What comes closest would be the LRT with its own unique design for Penang. Or Yinchuan’s advanced monorail, but I wouldn’t know if it is as good as the LRT.

Penang Transport Master Plan: RM27bil to RM46bil, why?

Critics claim that Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) was originally estimated at RM27 billion, before SRS increased it to RM46 billion.

Although many have explained this before, but this wrong info still going around. From this wrong info, critics created other allegations such as the purpose of the increase is to benefit developers or cronies.

Want to find out why the current PTMP estimated at RM46 billion?

Simple, just remember 3 things:

1) SRS Consortium's submitted RM27 billion estimation

Actually SRS proposal submitted for the open Request For Proposal (RFP) tender was not estimated at RM46 billion, but at RM27 billion. This was widely reported back in 2015, when SRS won the bid. 

[https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2015/08/14/gamuda-gets-pdp-job-for-penang-project, http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1521374, https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1846212&page=3]

2) Increase to RM46 billion because of added components

The increase to RM46 billion came because of added components. Most of the added components to cover the 3 districts in the mainland, requested by the Seberang Perai Municipal Council. 

[http://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/cost-penang-transport-master-plan-balloon-rm46b-says-project-delivery-partner]

Halcrow's RM27 billion report proposed only these for mainland:
i) 2 short tram or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines at Seberang Perai Tengah.
ii) Leverage on existing KTM rail line.

The current version of PTMP (with input from all relevant agencies including the mainland council) planned these for the mainland:
i) 1 monorail (from south Seberang Perai Utara to north Seberang Perai Selatan).
ii) 1 long BRT (from north Seberang Perai Tengah to south Seberang Perai Selatan).
iii) 1 LRT (from island across the canal to mid Seberang Perai Tengah to north Seberang Perai Tengah)

Comparison between Halcrow and current PTMP:

3) RM27 billion was officially and internally known by SRS

The fact that one of SRS' components Gamuda's managing director said that he was not aware of the increase to RM46 billion showed that SRS' submitted proposal was known internally to be only RM27 billion. [http://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/gamudas-md-says-unaware-rm27b-penang-transport-master-plan-cost-rm46b]

Summary

The increase from RM27 billion to RM46 billion is not to benefit developers or cronies as alleged by critics.

First, SRS proposal was RM27 billion, same as Halcrow's.

Second, the increase was due to added components mostly for Seberang Perai.

Third, Gamuda's MD being not aware of the increase until after being informed showed that the original SRS proposal was understood internally as RM27 billion.

Public transport as not-for-profit public service

Developing and sustaining public transport is expensive. This is true for most countries around the world.

An expert from London’s Centre for Transport Studies recently claimed that the Penang state government will bear RM1.2 billion in losses if the ridership of the Light-Rail Transit (LRT) falls below the estimated number for ten years.

It is of course ideal for public transport to be financially sustainable without government grants and subsidies, such as the Hong Kong MTR system. However, ideals turn idealistic when based on the wrong assumptions.

Almost all good and elaborate public transport systems require expensive upgrades and operational costs paid by the government.

For instance, the operational cost of Curitiba’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system has to be paid for by the government to cover the accumulated RM1.3 billion financial loss incurred in seven years (2010-2017), while Bogota’s BRT needed the government’s financial aid of “hundreds of millions of pesos per year on top of already budgeted funds and revenue collected from passengers”.

Singapore’s government subsidised its elaborate public transport system with about RM120 billion for ten years. That is RM12 billion per year.

London’s public transport received an annual government grant of about RM3.7 billion. Nevertheless, the London public transport authority has been recording losses in the past years and it is expected to hit RM5 billion in 2018 alone. Balancing public transport expenditure is an uphill task even for London with all its learned experts at the Centre for Transport Studies.

Financially self-sustaining systems such as Hong Kong’s MTR depend heavily on transit-oriented development that capitalises on land use along with their public transport network. This is one of the strategies that the Penang Transport Master Plan will adopt to pay for operational costs.

This is not to say that Penang’s LRT will incur a loss, but to point out the wrong assumption that operating public transport is profitable. Yet, this is no reason for public transport operators to be lackadaisical, instead, they should strive hard to balance the book.

Top sustainable cities apply multidimensional approach to public mobility

Do you know that Zurich, Singapore, and Stockholm are top sustainable cities in the world?

They have traffic jam too, like Penang. To solve the traffic problem, these 3 cities develop better public transport and build new roads simultaneously.

Zurich, Switzerland

Zurich has buses, trams, boats, and trains as modes of public transport. RM804 mil allocated by their government in 2017 to expand the northern bypass.

Last year, the Swiss parliament set aside RM7.4 bil for their “Fund for the Special Financing of Road Transport” for road expansion projects.

Switzerland has 239 tunnels with combined length of 251 km. The Galgenbuck Tunnel and Belchen Tunnel are currently being built at the cost of RM934 mil and RM2.05 bil respectively. In the pipeline is a new RM8.2 bil tunnel for cars, located next to the current Gotthard road tunnel.

Singapore

Singapore’s public transport comprises MRT, LRT, monorail, extensive bus network, fleets of regulated taxi, electric-car sharing service, and developing self-driving buses and cars.

Currently, Singapore has at least 13 on-going road construction projects, estimated cost of RM33.56 bil.

Singapore has 5 road tunnels with the latest being the 1.4 kilometres undersea Sentosa Gateway Tunnel, opened last year, built at a cost of about RM600 mil.

Stockholm, Sweden

Stockholm has buses, underground trains, commuter trains, trams, and ferries.

Two major road projects are being carried out in Stockholm county. The 20 km Tvärförbindelse Södertörn project at the south is in the planning phase, with the estimated cost of RM2.26 bil.

The Stockholm bypass project, estimated to cost RM14.7 bil started construction in 2015. 18 km of the 21 km bypass are road tunnel.

All these 3 cities have used "drill and blast" method for tunneling work.

Penang, Malaysia

No two cities are exactly alike. We cannot blindly copy all their transport policy. Nonetheless, I am glad that Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) uses strategy similar to the 3 cities.

Before PTMP, Penang has initiated subsidised and free bus programmes. The Central Area Transit and Bridge Express Shuttle Transit were started in 2009 and 2011 respectively.

This year RM15 million is allocated for the Congestion Alleviation Transport free bus initiative that covers twelve routes on both the mainland and island. And recently, a RM90 million fund is set aside to improve the ferry services.

Besides expanding public transportation, consultation and traffic realignment have also been studied and conducted by the two local councils with the involvement of traffic experts from Universiti Sains Malaysia.

PTMP's first phase is to build LRT and the Pan-Island Link 1 expressway, with about 50% of road tunnel. We have to strive to be a sustainable city, learning from top existing ones.

Sustainable public mobility is multidimensional

Providing more public transport together with more roads is a multidimensional approach to building a feasible infrastructure for public mobility. That is the philosophy underlying the Penang Transport Master Plan.

Each country constructs public mobility infrastructure according to its context. Not a single country in the world has stopped using roads or stopped constructing new ones as part of its strategy to increase public mobility. In the case of Penang, the multidimensional and multimodal approach has been adopted.

A recent article 'Going off-road for sustainability, equity, and health' disparages the multidimensional approach. The authors expressed caution over the complementary approach taken to build the public mobility infrastructure in Penang, drawing from examples in the likes of Zurich, Singapore, and others to show that the multidimensional model does not work.

Nothing can be further from the truth. Those cities are the finest examples of the multidimensional approach.

Take for example, Zurich, despite having multi modes of public transport, the canton spent RM804 million (195 million Swiss francs) in 2017 alone to widen its northern bypass to six lanes. In fact, the Swiss parliament has budgeted RM4.9 billion (1.2 billion Swiss francs) for their "Fund for the Special Financing of Road Transport" for several road expansion projects that commenced in 2017. In total, Switzerland allocated RM7.4 billion (1.8 billion Swiss francs) in last year alone for various road-building projects, as stated in the 'Roads and Traffic 2017' report by the Swiss Federal Roads Office.

Singapore's multidimensional approach consists of 10 expressways along with MRT, monorail, LRT, feeder bus network, etc. Nevertheless, the highly urbanised city-state continues to build new roads and expands current ones.

For instances, the new road between MacRitchie Viaduct and Adam Flyover (RM189 million/SGD63.6 million), Tuas West road extension (RM47 million/SGD15.8 million), viaduct from Tampines Expressway to Pan-Island Expressway and Upper Changi Road East (RM65.5 million/SGD22 million), major arterial road from CTE to Yishun Avenue 6 (RM29.8 million/SGD10 million), road for Thomson Line (RM67.77 million/SGD22.72 million), road network enhancement at Upper Bukit Timah Road/Jalan Anak Bukit (RM45.32 million/SGD15.2 million), new road between Senja Road and Kranji Expressway (RM26.3 million/SGD8.79 million), and new road between Lorong Halus and Pasir Ris Farmway 2 Including expansion of KPE/TPE Interchange (RM31.3 million/SGD10.5 million).

All these road construction projects amount to RM502 million in just last year alone, stated in Singapore's 2017 budget. At the time of writing, Singapore is currently building its eleventh expressway, the 21.5km North-South Corridor, with an estimated cost of RM23 billion (SGD8 billion). This new expressway is a good example of the multidimensional model for it will have a highway for cars, dedicated bus lane, and designated cycling lane. It has various modes of transport complementing each other to increase public mobility.

These two top advanced cities, Zurich and Singapore, both known for being the most sustainable actually employ the multidimensional model that provides public transport and roads in a complementary manner.

This approach does not prioritise roads over public transport as mistakenly assumed by the abovementioned article. The authors do not seem to have consulted the actual transportation plans and budget of the two cities before jumping to their misplaced conclusion.

As shown empirically through actual numbers and transportation plans, the sustainable approach is also the multidimensional approach, at least in the example of Switzerland and Singapore.

As seen in these countries, the multi-dimensional model has proved to be successful in increasing public mobility through various modes of public transport complementing each other, including strategic use of new roads. And this is the model employed in the Penang Transport Master Plan.

Feasible transport master plan requires efficient road network

Mobility is the backbone of civilization. The easier and further people can move, the population can be more connected, wider networks established, more trade transacted, more goods transferred, more knowledge exchanged, and mega-city formed.

This is especially so for major roads. Take for instance the ancient Silk Roads, as Oxford historian Peter Frankopan wrote: “There was good reason why the cultures, cities and peoples who lived along the Silk Roads developed and advanced: as they traded and exchanged ideas, they learnt and borrowed from each other, stimulating further advances in philosophy, the sciences, language and religion.”

Roads are the main infrastructure for land travelling throughout human history. Many roads remain so for short distance journey in every country today. There is not a single developing country or city that does not use roads or stop building roads as part of socio-economic progress.

Sure, each country utilises roads differently but none of them stop building roads. The importance of building roads to improve mobility is universally understood by all city planners. The disagreement is over how to use them. 

All modes of ground transportation from horse carriages to bicycles, motorcycles, cars, buses, and lorries need roads. Roads bring people together, expand empires, create cities, and facilitate advancement of knowledge and discoveries. In other words, roads have enabled the rise of civilisation.

Therefore, a feasible transport master plan that relieves traffic congestion in the short run and capable of increasing public mobility in the long run needs to be supported by a good road network. Such network is integral to public transportation.

The Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) is a good example of such projects.

Halcrow’s proposal is short-term

Originated in the Penang Transport Council, established by the Penang state government in 2009, the master plan proposal has gone through altogether seven years of preparation before getting approved in January 2016.

Over the seven years, there are two major modifications before the current version of the master plan was adopted. These are the results from consultation and discussion done with all the relevant state and federal agencies.

The first one was over the study prepared by Halcrow in 2013, while the second one was over the alternative proposed by SRS Consortium in 2015. Some components were dropped, some adopted, and new ones were added.

For instance, the seven tram routes on the island were dropped. This is for good reason as it involves land acquisition and underground utility adjustment that will incur more cost than estimated, and potentially increase traffic congestion during and after the implementation.

Whereas the undersea tunnel proposed in the Halcrow study was included as it will enhance the connection between island and the mainland, opening up a strategic corridor in the northern region of the peninsula covering Seberang Perai Utara, Kedah, southern Perlis, and northern Perak.

Furthermore, the Halcrow study was conceived as a short-term solution, up until 2030. A long-term transport master plan for Penang needs to outlive our generation in order to secure the future for subsequent generations. Therefore the adopted PTMP look to 2050 and beyond. 

All the critical components are meant for a comprehensive network to increase public mobility in the long run. This includes the proposed major roads.

To say that ‘more roads will lead to more cars on the road’ is wrong. The phrase is mere sophistry that not only lacks nuances but devoid of basic logical reasoning. The logic is the same as saying ‘the cause of divorce is marriage’.

Correlation is not causation

Many studies that claim to have proven ‘the increase of roads leads to the increase of cars on the road’ demonstrates only a correlation but not causation. 

It is well known among credible statisticians, scientists, and thinkers that the occurrence of two variables does not establish a causal relation. Rather, it is the convergence of institutional, social, economic, political, and personal factors that induces the increase of private car usage. 

To reduce this complex interplay to “more roads equals more cars” is not only misreading statistics but also unscientific and unthinking, lacking multi-dimensional comprehension.

With the consistency and efficient implementation of good transport policy, having more roads does not lead to more cars on the road. Some of the significant factors that put more cars on the roads are the availability of cars in the market, the consumer’s ability to purchase car, the facility of car loan, the need for mobility and personal comfort, the car’s symbolism of prestige, and the infrastructure conducive for private car usage. 

Take away one or two of these, even without a good public transport system, private car usage will not increase with more roads.

As argued above, building roads is required for a developing state to increase mobility, and this is understood by all credible city planners. Not without good reasons that China is reviving the ancient transnational road network in its latest reincarnation, ‘Silk Road Economic Belt and Maritime Silk Road’, or popularly known as ‘One Belt, One Road’.

Like all great civilisations, developing new road network is a must to secure the future for a state. We can disagree over how to utilise them.

The beauty of Malaysia Baharu

I can never forget the strangeness of May 10, 2018. Everything was actually the same, I walked past the same street, drank the same 2-in-1 instant coffee and ordered food from the same hawker. But somehow, that day felt different. It was as if my experience was out of sync with the physical surroundings.

I guess many Malaysians felt the same that day, right after the watershed fourteenth general election. The mass existential discord was vivid and swiping through the nation’s collective consciousness. Our surroundings remained the same but there was a sense that the national fabric underneath our country was changed overnight.

A new era has arrived, but not yet. We Malaysians carried on with our familiar lives in a strange place, like actors who found themselves performing an old play on a brand new stage.

Since then, two months have passed. Today, I attended the first day of the three-day “World Conference On Islamic Thought and Civilisation? (WCIT2018) organised by the state government of Perak and the Universiti Sultan Azlan Shah. Some may wonder, why is a DAP member attending an Islamic conference?

DAP is always open to learn from and to uphold Islam. As Lim Kit Siang once said, “DAP supports Islamisation based on the Malaysian constitution which promotes a nation-building process based on tolerance and mutual respect in a plural society.” So when DAP Penang received an invitation to the WCIT2018, I volunteered my participation.

The first day is given entirely to the arts. The sessions explored the connection between Islam and the arts. The theatre performers, poets, literary critics, art professors and musicians all shared generously about their work and learning.

What I find particularly relevant to the whole “Malaysia Baharu” experience was the speakers’ emphasis on aesthetics. From “wayang kulit” to poems and theatre, all arts are in one way or another are aimed at provoking the audience by variously establishing connections with them either through their political struggles, cultural backgrounds or religious beliefs.

The aesthetics, the beauty in the arts, lie in this connection. The more harmonious the connection is, the more beautiful the art becomes. As the fourteenth century Islamic polymath, Ibn Khaldun wrote, “(Beauty) harmonises with the cognitive soul, which enjoys perceiving that which is in harmony with itself.”

Hashim Yaacob, the former vice-chancellor of Universiti Malaya, during his session, recited the eighteenth-century poem “Abou Ben Adhem” by Leigh Hunt. In the poem, the protagonist Abou woke up in the middle of the night, visited by an angel who was writing the names of those who love God.

Abou asked if his name was written. The angel replied, “Nay, not so.” Solemnly Abou begged the angel to write down his name as one who loves his fellow humans. Then the angel disappeared.

The next night, the angel came again, with much more splendour than the previous night. It then showed Abou the list of names whom God loves. And lo, Abou’s name was at the top.

The love for fellow humans is beautifully depicted in the poem to reflect the love of God. There is a harmonious connection between how Abou relates to others and with how God relates to him.

The post-GE14 strangeness begotten by the discord between the change of government and the present reality yearns for such beauty. We are searching for a harmonious connection in the new Malaysia. Our collective consciousness is anticipating the affinity between our hope and the upcoming reality as promised.

The emergence of Malaysia Baharu has been described in myriad ways; victorious, surprising, historical, and miraculous. Missing is the aesthetics; how beautiful the new era is. The more harmonious we are, the more beautiful Malaysia will be.

If an angel appears tonight, let us ask to be written as one who loves our fellow Malaysians.

Penang’s debt reduction due to prudence, not water deal

Barisan Nasional politicians such as Najib Razak and Abdul Rahman Dahlan had asked the Penang state government to stop taking credit for reducing the state’s debt by 90% as the reduction was due to the federal-state water restructuring agreement.

The minister has completely missed the point of the whole issue about Penang’s low debt. It is not about the one-off water restructuring transaction that benefited both the federal and the state governments. Rather, it is about the Penang state government’s prudence in debt management.

Water deal was no free lunch

First, the water restructuring agreement signed in 2011 was not a result of the federal government’s benevolence to the state. It was a solution to address the critical debt problem affecting the federal government and all the states in the peninsular.

The collective water debt around the country in December 2007, before the signing of the first water deal, escalated to RM7.6 billion. The National Water Services Industry Initiative (NWSII) was aimed at solving this nationwide debt problem.

Both the federal and peninsular states had to compromise to benefit from the restructuring initiative. For Penang, the state government had to transfer water-related assets valued at RM655 million to the Ministry of Finance’s Pengurusan Aset Air Berhad (PAAB) for 45 years. In return, PAAB leases these assets to Perbadanan Bekalan Air Pulau Pinang (PBAPP) for 45 years with an annual payment of RM14.56 million.

PBAPP has been paying the annual fee to the federal government without default. It was not a free lunch.

Penang’s Debt Management

Secondly, as of now, there are altogether seven states that have entered into the water deal. Out of the seven, Penang has not only managed to maintain the lowest debt but also achieved the highest debt reduction rate from the year of their signing until 2016.

For example, Melaka was the first to enter into the water deal in 2008, with the transfer of water-related assets valued at RM889 million. The state’s debt in the preceding year (i.e. 2007) was RM1,100 million, and reduced to RM851 million by 2016. Melaka’s debt reduction rate is 23%.

Penang signed the water deal in 2011 with the transfer of water-related assets valued at RM655 million. Penang’s debt in 2010 was RM688 million, and was reduced to RM64 million by 2016. The debt reduction rate is 91%!

This table shows that the water restructuring agreement is only one of the many factors affecting state debt.

Johor is a case in point. Johor’s debt amounted to RM1,010 million before they signed the water deal. The value of Johor’s water-assets transfer was RM4,030 million, almost three times more than the state debt. However, Johor still owed RM413 million in 2016. Johor’s debt was reduced by 59%, from the year prior to the water deal until 2016.

Kelantan’s situation is no less remarkable. The state owed RM1,354 million in 2015. Kelantan entered the restructuring agreement in September 2016, with water-assets transfer valued at RM604 million. Yet, the state’s debt in that very year increased by 3%!

These show that the water restructuring agreement is only one of the many factors in affecting state debt.

The point: Penang has managed to maintain the lowest debt and achieved the highest debt reduction rate not only because the state government has signed the water deal but, more importantly, the Pakatan state leaders have the political will and prudence in managing debt. A clean and competent government reduces debt.
 

Politicians who keeps harping on the water deal as the reason for Penang’s lowest debt in the country is clearly misinforming the public.

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.