The local media’s extensive coverage of the proposal regarding the Parliament building and the justifications/objections for it, gives the impression that the main point is not the building, but creating an opportunity for some connected/related/influential parties and those involved in the approving process.  

The original proposal suggested an initial cost of RM800 million with possibility of subsequent increases as is the normal case of government funded projects – with the final cost escalating to RM1.5 billion and maybe even reaching RM2 billion.  

The Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) is the most recent example of escalation of costs. This could be the scenario if competitive tenders are not called for and the award is made on direct and negotiated basis.  

As the opposition was too great from almost all sectors of society, the new Parliament building proposal was changed to converting the Putrajaya International Convention Centre (PICC) to be the new Parliament building with initial costs estimated at RM250 million. Again with the possibility of final costs escalating to half a billion.  

The justification given is that it will enable the PICC to be utilised as it is grossly underutilised at present. If my memory serves me right, there were strong objections to the construction of the PICC as it may not be fully utilised but government advisers and professionals provided projections that the PICC would be viable.  

It has again been proven that the professionals may not have been truly honest and may have 'cooked' the projections to make it appear to be viable. Here again the project could have enriched a few as competitive tenders were not called.   

The latest proposal is to renovate the present Parliament building which is also in great need for repairs. The estimated cost is about RM180 million. However, the original building was constructed by competitive tenders and cost about RM20 million.  

It did not experience any major problems until it was renovated at a cost of about RM100 million and it still has major defects. There is no report of any action taken against anyone or anyone being held accountable even after the high costs highlighted by the auditor-general’s report drew the Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) attention. All was forgotten as is normally the case with mismanaged projects.  

Another stated reason for the renovation is to cater for the rising number of MPs due to the creation of more constituencies. It may be noted that the British Parliament building has not been expanded, neither has Capitol Hill nor has any of the legislative buildings in many other countries.  

The local thinking and the bloated public service appears to equate quantity with quality and performance.