Last Friday, interesting exchanges took place at the dialogue session organised by the Say No To Kidex (SNTK) pro-tem committee which saw the presence of a good number of elected representatives (all from the DAP party) from the affected constituencies.

The organiser has to be commended for the professional and civilised way in conducting the dialogue and I personally think that it is a healthy sign of democracy at work. The members did a good job of analysing the finer details of the project and rubbished the developer’s claim of traffic congestion alleviation, the poor connectivity and no less, ‘the first living highway’.  

Many questions and also a fair amount of criticisms were thrown at the three assemblypersons (R Rajiv, Lau Weng San and Ng Sze Han) and MP Tony Pua. The feeling of being betrayed by Pakatan Rakyat permeated the small Rukun Tetangga hall in Section 4.

What troubled a lot of us that evening is the defence of the ‘agreement in principle’ to the project given by the Pakatan-led Selangor government and the somewhat fresh perspective on Pakatan’s ‘no-toll’ manifesto.

It did not go down well with the 70-odd crowd, particularly right after they heard that due process of amending the local plans was not followed and the developer had repeatedly failed to produce evidence to back its claims.

We get it that agreement in principle has no legal status but yet in this case it exposed the unsavoury side of Pakatan in terms of good governance. Still more importantly, it revealed that Pakatan’s policy (or the lack of it) on highways need to be examined closer.

On one hand, Pakatan promised to abolish toll when it takes over Putrajaya, but on the other hand, it is not against so-called fair toll. This was one of the three conditions that YB Tony Pua set out in holding MB Khalid Ibrahim responsible in considering Kidex - that the toll rate will not be super-lucrative.

I would like Pakatan to explain why was it compelled to review the country’s highway concession agreements with a view to abolishing toll but yet not absolutely adverse to new tolled highway as long as they are fair. What is the driving principle? Is Pakatan effectively saying it will abolish unfair toll AND replace it with a fairer charge?

The other glaring aspect is the argument for highway according to needs of which Pua is supportive of and that includes Kidex or an improved version of it later. Herein lies the question of Pakatan’s vision (or the lack of it, again) of a sustainable city.

Granted that Pua was not playing to the gallery like most politicians would particularly if they’re pushed to the wall like on that night but his discomfort with SNTK’s stand of No Kidex At All Costs indicates the deficit in holistic development thinking within Pakatan’s top echelon.

As a resident of PJ, and I believe many among those present that Friday night would agree, we want to see leadership from Pakatan in terms of sustainable development. For a start, implement Local Agenda 21 and give real meaning to public consultation and participation in developmental matters.

Almost cathartically, the organiser and even among the residents present repeatedly wanted to hear their wakil rakyat say they will reject Kidex and are on their side. This shows that despite the frustration, deep down the sentimental attachment to Pakatan is still there.

We still sayang Pakatan. But don’t count on it for too long. Don’t take our support for granted.