Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has taken the opportunity of opening the glittering RM650 million Putrajaya Convention Centre to vindicate his lavish spending on the creation of the crown jewel of his mega projects the Putrajaya administrative capital.

Under the headline 'PM: People see the light', The Star on June 10 quoted Mahathir as saying:

"Criticism about the Government's move to develop Putrajaya into a government centre has grown progressively muted following its success.

"The people have now realised that the decision to develop Putrajaya was fully justifiable because it was developed for the country and not for me.

"All the money that we have spent to develop Putrajaya is justified. This project is something that has impressed many foreign visitors.

"There is no reason why Malaysia should not have an impressive administrative capital just like other advanced countries, and now with our determination and discipline, Putrajaya has truly become something that we can be proud of."

So, Mahathir has taken the silence of the press as vindication of his spending on his mega-projects. But since when have we had a lively press that promotes healthy public opinion?

Can anyone recall having read any substantive criticism of Mahathir's major decisions in the local press over the past two decades? I certainly cannot recall any.

The Malaysian press is known worldwide for its docility. Therefore, it would be outright indecent for anyone, most of all the prime minister, to take the silence of the press as a stamp of approval.

Missing the point

Is Putrajaya visually impressive? That sounds like a stupid question, as the answer is obvious.

Knowing what money can buy, could anyone fail to build something impressive when given tens of billions of ringgit to spend on it?

The very fact that the initiator of the project has used that point to vindicate his decision only reflects the level of his mentality and the paucity of his rationale.

Why should it be a big deal when foreign visitors are impressed? And why should that be counted as justifying the building of the project?

How does the fact that Putrajaya is built for Malaysia justify the decision to build it in the first place?

If Mahathir's logic prevails, then practically everything built by the government is automatically justified, for it is invariably built for the country and not for the leader.

Surely the decision to build any government project must be judged on the merits of the case, and not on the premise that it is meant for the country. Mahathir's argument completely misses the point.

His claim that Malaysia is entitled to an impressive administrative capital raises many questions.

First, Malaysia is not an advanced country. Its per capital income is only a small fraction of that of advanced countries, and hence may not be able to afford some of the kinds of projects executed by advanced countries.

Second, what is meant by "impressive administrative capitals"? I presume Mahathir means that it is a city wholly devoted to accommodate the administrative offices of a country. If that is the case, I can hardly think of any capital which qualifies as such.

Even the few reputed to be so - Washington DC, Canberra and the Basilica (of the Vatican) - are developed with such a high level of economic activity that they can hardly be described as purely administrative cities.

What makes Mahathir think that regrouping government offices in a separate geographical location would make a country look great? (If greatness is not what Mahathir is aiming for, then what is he aiming at?)

Aren't London, Paris, Beijing and Tokyo considered great capitals, each looked upon with pride by the respective citizens? Aren't all the great capitals of the world thriving with economic, cultural and political activities, each distinguished by their unique historical heritage?

Why would anyone think that Kuala Lumpur - the centre of politics, culture and commerce, with its beautiful skyline of tall buildings and mountain ranges - would not make Malaysians feel proud?

Cost-benefit test

Should we feel proud of Putrajaya? Sure, the visual impact is impressive with beautiful landscape and grandiose buildings. But the answer does not lie there.

The real issue is whether it was the correct decision to build Putrajaya given the circumstances of the time.

If this project cannot pass the most rudimentary cost-benefit test, then Malaysians have no cause to feel proud and every reason to feel ashamed that they should have allowed such a stupendous folly to be committed.

For a project which costs a whopping one-third of our national budget, there should have been a lengthy process of public discourse before the decision was made, as in other countries.

The construction of the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) project was preceded by more than a decade of controversial public debate before it was finally approved by Parliament.

In the case of the Three Gorges dam in China, there were five decades of study and deliberation from the time its leader Mao Tse Tung announced his ambition. Eventually, the decision was endorsed by the People's Congress.

In the case of our Putrajaya, was the proposal debated and approved in Parliament? No. And how many years of public consultations have we had on this subject? None.

In fact, when news of the project appeared in the local press, its construction was already well underway, with the prime minister's palatial residence nearing completion and his majestic office building in an advanced stage of construction.

The work was so well guarded that the first public view of the PM's residence was not through the local press, but from a photograph published in PAS organ Harakah in mid-1999.

Secret construction

Imagine building a brand new capital city in secrecy and without Parliament's approval in this modern age! Must be worthy of a place in Guinness Book of World Records. Malaysia Boleh!

(This event alone illustrates the utterly hopeless state of democratic practice in this country. It also demonstrates how impotent and superfluous Parliament has become under the relentless autocracy of Mahathir in particular, and Umno's hegemony in general.)

Why should the construction of the project be kept so well hidden from public view? Shouldn't the government have been proud of its biggest-ever project, and shouldn't this have been given maximum publicity if it was really built in the best interests of the people?

Was the government's secretive behaviour prompted by guilty conscience and fear of public scorn, for the squandering of public funds on such a massive scale?

And how much does the nation have to pay for the grandeur and luxury of Putrajaya? A 1999 estimate put the figure at RM22 billion - this works out to about RM4,000 per family.

And what is the economic return for spending that sum? It is negligible when compared to the colossal sum spent.

This is especially true when considered against the fact that the new government office floors created in Putrajaya are largely unnecessary because few of the agencies based in Kuala Lumpur are short of office space.

Hence, from the economic point of view, fulfillment of Mahathir's dream capital has not only resulted in massive drain of the nation's wealth, but has also contributed significantly to the enduring property glut in Kuala Lumpur.

The situation is expected to worsen as the migration of government offices and personnel to Putrajaya continues in the coming years.

Mahathir has tried to spin out different reasons on different occasions to justify the building of his mega projects, in particular Putrajaya. None of these can stand up to a scrutiny of logic and facts, which I am prepared to go into at another time.

For now, suffice to say that Putrajaya bears the hallmark of Mahathir's mega projects - high on grandeur and cost but low on economic rationale and returns.

The tragedy is that such projects come at a time when Malaysia can least afford the luxury of building them, having gone through five successive years of high deficit spending and with no prospect of an economic upturn on the horizon.

For Mahathir's loyal supporters and admirers who may be skeptical of my critical views, I offer one last line to for them to ponder.

How has each of Mahathir's mega projects measured up to the ideal that it represents the optimum utilisation of national resources for the maximum benefit of our people?