LETTER | A heated controversy is going on now on why the DAP was against the Penang Outer Ring Road (PORR) project in 2002 but for Pan Island Link 1 (PIL1, a variation of PORR) now. I was in Penang in 2002 when the issue of PORR was hotly debated and opposed by NGOs and opposition parties like DAP. I relive this debate now in the form of PIL1.

I am Zulfikar Ali, a resident in Tanjong Bungah. Like millions of Malaysians, I voted for Pakatan Harapan and to support a government that promises change and hope. But I am saddened to see that even in the early days of the Harapan government, some leaders have begun to adopt the attitude of BN, ignoring the voices of rakyat, and vilifying legitimate concerns raised by rakyat.

On Aug 10, the Penang chief minister said he opposed PORR because it was proposed as a tolled road and that the NGOs were misleading the public So, I decided to Google to see what are the facts. In this age of the Internet, it is easy to check for facts.

I found this on the DAP website. Chow Kon Yeow in a speech on May 29, 2002, said he opposed PORR for several reasons. The first he said was, “if the findings of the Halcrow Report are true, Dr Koh would be irresponsible in pushing the PORR through as this will not be a long-term solution to the traffic congestion on the island.”

Halcrow incidentally was also the consultant for the Penang Transport Master Plan under this government. Other reasons given were that DAP was against collecting toll and that an open tender system was not practised […] and (also) Penangites are oblivious of the impact of the PORR on Penang’s future and the quality of life on this beautiful island because of the lack of information.”

He ended by calling for a review of the PORR project and not to “bulldoze through the PORR project despite fierce opposition from the people that the project is unnecessary and being carried out under a shroud of secrecy [...]”

On June 15, 2002, he reiterated the same points he raised in Parliament as a motion against PORR.

Hence, it is clear that the issues of toll and open tender were not the only reasons Chow was against the PORR. Otherwise, he would have said he supported PORR as long as tolls were not collected and an open tender system was practised. But no, he was against PORR because it does not solve traffic congestion. Hence readers should judge for themselves as to who is misleading whom?

I decided to probe further and discovered a report dated May 28, 2002, that cited Lim Kit Siang who said the same thing. He could not have been clearer on the primary reason why DAP rejected PORR.

Lim Kit Siang said “the nightmare of the Penang traffic congestion is likely to be back to square one, not in eight years but probably less than five years, after the completion of PORR […] What Penang needs is an efficient public transport system based on sustainable transport policy, as PORR is not a medium-term let alone long-term solution to the traffic congestion nightmare on the island.”

He continued, "For medium and long-term improvements, the Halcrow report recognised that a sensible option in promoting continued and sustained growth for Penang would be for the car adapting to the city as in the case of Singapore, rather than the city adapting to the car in the case of Bangkok," he added.

The question I ask, as a Penangite who voted for DAP, is why is the present DAP leadership going against its own stand?

My questions are:

1. Did the present Halcrow report of the Penang state government claim PIL 1 will relieve traffic for more than 20 years? In the Halcrow report, the PIL project was not even mentioned. So who made this unsubstantiated claim? The PIL project was inserted by SRS Consortium. The members of the SRS consortium are not traffic experts; they are infrastructure contractors and developers.

2. Has the Penang state government practised genuine open tender or only a request for proposal (RFP)? It has already been pointed out by Professor Ahmad Hilmy of USM and Dr Lim Mah Hui that RFP is not an open tender. It is open bidding for different proposals and susceptible to rigging.

3. Does the PIL 1 really complement other public transport? In Phase 1 of the SRS Penang Transport Master Plan, RM17 billion will be spent to build PIL 1 and an LRT. No other funds are allocated to implement other components of public transport. And it is unlikely other funds are available. So how can PIL1 complement other public transport components?

4. Finally, the Penang state government should not boast that PIL1 is going to be toll-free because it is a financially and ecologically irresponsible policy and undermines its own stated objective to increase public modal share of transport. Is the Penang state government also going to make the existing two bridges and ferry toll-free?

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.