No to KLIA@East – We already have KLIA!
It is perhaps a coincidence that recently Sime Darby was inadvertently forced into and be involved – by chance – in two major projects of national interests which would see the rakyat rise up to voice their displeasure.
First, it was the move to take over IJN by the world’s largest plantation company (which had suffered losses of RM100 million by selling palm oil to China and RM77.5 million through rogue trading, after it had merged with Kumpulan Guthrie and Golden Hope Plantations in 2007) with a view to privatizing it.
IJN, or the National Heart Institute, is very close to the rakyat’s heart and they had spoken out loud disapprovingly. The rakyat was fearful, with good reason, that the move would likely rob them of excellent and affordable medical treatments for their heart ailments which are their No.1 killer. Happily, the authority and Sime Darby had allowed better judgement to rule and placed public interest first by abandoning the deal on Friday, 5 January 2009.
Now we have a second situation involving Sime Darby that the rakyat, in their wisdom, are also questioning and exceedingly unhappy about.
This had to do with Sime Darby’s application been given approval by the government for it to build a Low Cost Carrier Terminal (LCCT) in Labu, Negeri Sembilan on the same day the company had announced it was pulling out of its bid to take over IJN.
Whether the IJN takeover bid was a red herring in order for the company to be successful in its application to build the now-branded KLIA East @ Labu, is best left as speculation by over-active minds and loose tongues. Whether also it is an attempt by the authority to appease Sime Darby’s unsuccessful bid to privatize IJN, one cannot run away from the fact that there are indeed far larger issues to be taken into consideration as far as the construction of the LCCT in Labu is concerned. As the rakyat view them, they are of national interests. This of course should not be seen as an attempt by the rakyat to deny economic developments coming to Negeri Sembilan when there had been numerous corridors of development earmarked for other states. Far from it, the rakyat are not against development no matter where it happens as long as it truly benefits them and they don’t end up footing the bill with massive bailouts. When ulterior motives come in the guise of development that’s when the rakyat have to be doubly careful to safeguard their hard-earned tax money.
Seriously, where KLIA East @ Labu is concerned and as the rakyat delve into its pros and cons, there arise far more questions than whole-hearted support for the project. Why is that? The rakyat shall not beat about the bush. The rakyat shall simply come out and ask the hard questions and hope the right answers will be forthcoming for the rakyat to give their full support for the project.
1. Why the hurry to rush through the approval to build KLIA East @ Labu? Has it got anything to do with Abdullah Badawi’s term as the prime minister coming to an end in March 2009?
2. Is the construction of KLIA East @ Labu a purported attempt to shore up and safeguard the political future of a young and ambitious politician?
3. Why build KLIA East @ Labu when KLIA is still grossly under-utilised until today? (KLIA was originally designed to handle 125 million passengers a year but is now only handling about 25 million.)
4. Why build KLIA East @ Labu when the government has already built LCCT in Sepang and spent a total of almost RM244 million for the seeming exclusive use of AirAsia? (The sum includes the RM123.9 million used for its extension and upgrade as recently as 2008 last year.)
5. Why build KLIA East @ Labu when it will be a threat to public safety when its location is dangerously close to busy KLIA and LCCT in Sepang with a straight-line distance of only 10 km between them when ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) strictly recommends that the minimum distance between two airports should be at least 40 km?
6. Why build KLIA East @ Labu when it will be at a much further distance away from the Klang valley where far more passengers will hail from?
7. Why build KLIA East @ Labu at such great cost for the exclusive use of one airline – AirAsia?
8. After the construction of KLIA East @ Labu is completed, will LCCT in Sepang be abandoned?
9. What is the synergy between the businesses of Sime Darby (a GLC) and AirAsia (a private company) that makes good sense for both companies to consider coming together to build KLIA East @ Labu and hope to make a success of it?
10. Sime Darby does not own enough land in Negeri Sembilan for building KLIA East @ Labu which will require about 3,000 acres. So from whom will Sime Darby be buying land? Who are the owners of this land? Are they cronies, family members and/or people who are friendly and personally connected with Sime Darby and AirAsia?
11. If KLIA East @ Labu is apparently a joint-venture between Sime Darby and AirAsia, does AirAsia have the fund for this massive RM1.6 billion project when the company has suffered heavy losses for hedging aero fuel price and has to take delivery of 150 Airbus planes at an average of 1 plane per month?
12. Is it too far-fetched to consider that KLIA East @ Labu is perhaps built to help accommodate the parking need of AirAsia’s Airbus planes as they are delivered?
13. AirAsia sells air tickets in advance as far ahead as 1 to 2 years which is equivalent to deposit-taking. What will happen to this money which belongs to the public in the event AirAsia goes under because of its heavy commitment and undertaking in the construction of KLIA East @ Labu?
14. If AirAsia is purportedly doing well and has the fund to build KLIA East @ Labu, what are the reasons then behind all the foreign investors selling off their shares in AirAsia?
15. What is the reason for EPF to be the biggest investor of AirAsia, a JV partner in the construction of KLIA East @ Labu with Sime Darby, and why does EPF continue to buy shares in AirAsia when its share price continues to dip south?
16. Does Sime Darby and AirAsia have the fund to sustain the maintenance of KLIA East @ Labu when it will cost, on average, about RM40 million a year to maintain an airport?
17. Is the reason for EPF to be a major shareholder in AirAsia, which has entered into a JV with Sime Darby to build KLIA East @ Labu at great cost, so that when this massive project needs to be bailed out EPF will be there to do so with the rakyat’s money?
18. Even though the construction of KLIA East @ Labu is claimed to be a Privately Funded Investment venture, should the authority throw caution to the wind and compromise on public safety by giving its approval?
Despite the seemingly beneficial economic development it brings to Negeri Sembilan at first glance, should the authority in all honesty in the name of public safety, public convenience and public interest be conscionable to give its blessing and approval for the building of KLIA East @ Labu for some – if not all – of the questions asked above?
– Terjemahan oleh Lee Wee Tak – Ucapan ribuan terima kasih dari Wee Choo Keong –
Soalan Mingguan WR Anda ke-42
Baru-baru ini Sime Darby telah dipaksa menyertai 2 projek kebangsaan besar yang menyebabkan bantahan rakyat.
Pertama, pengambil-alihan IJN oleh syarikat perladangan terbesar dunia (yang telah mengalami kerugian RM100 juta menerusi jualan minyak kelapa sawit ke China dan RM77.5 juta urusniaga palsu, setelah pergabungan dengan Kumpulan Guthrie dan Golden Hope Plantations dalam tahun 2007) dengan tujuan menswastakannya.
IJN amat disanjungi rakyat dan mereka membantah tindakan ini. Mereka rasa takut, dengan sebab yang munasabah, iaitu takut hak mereka untuk rawatan nan bermutu dan berharga berpatutan itu akan dirampas daripada mereka. Kini, pihak berkuasa dan Sime Darby telah memutuskan supaya tidak menswastakan IJN pada Junaat 5 Januari 2009 atas kepentingan umum.
Tetapi kini, kita ada suatu keadaan nan melibatkan Sime Darby lagi yang tidak menyenangi para rakyat jelata.
Ini melibatkan permohonan Sime Darby untuk membina Lapangan Terbang Kos Rendah / Low Cost Carrier Terminal (LCCT) di Labu, Negeri Sembilan yang telah diluluskan pada hari yang sama di mana kepeutusan tidak mengambil alih IJN dibuat.
Sama ada penswastaan IJN adalah helah membolehkan syarikat ini berjaya dalam permohonan membuat terminal di Labu, kita biarlah jadi tajuk perbincangan para orang yang suka berspekulasi. Sama ada ini adalah cara pihak berkuasa memujuk Sime Darby yang tersinggung dalam kegagalan menswastakan IJN atau tidak, tidak boleh dinafikan bahawa terdapat perkara yang lebih penting dalam pembinaan LCCT di Labu itu. Rakyat memandang perkara ini dalam tahap kepentingan kebangsaan. Ini tentu tidak boleh pula dilihat sebagai bantahan rakyat terhadap perkembangan iktisad di Negeri Sembilan semasa terdapat rancangan pembangunan lain (seperti rancangan-rancangan koridor pentadbiran Badawi) di negeri-negeri lain. Sebenarnya, para rakyat tidak bantah rancangan pembanguan selagi ianya benar-benar mendatangkan manfaat dan tidak perlu membiayai usaha menyelamatkan usaha-usaha yang gagal. Rakyat mesti menjaga wang mereka yang diperolehi bersusah payah terutamanya dihadapi dengan rancangan kononnya diberi nama pembanguan.
Semasa rakyat memikirkan kebaikan dan keburukan pembinaan KLIA East @ Labu ini, timbulnya lebih banyak persoalan daripada sokongan erus. Para rakyat hendak jawapan terus dan mereka akan tanya soalan-soalan jitu dan kita harap soalan-soalan ini akan dijawap dengan betul demi mendapat sokongan rakyat dalam usaha pembinaan ini.
1. Mengapa keputusan meluluskan pembianaan KLIA East @ Labu dilakukan dengan cepat? Adakah ia berhubung dengan penghabisan tempoh jawatan Abdullah Badawi sebagai Perdana Menteri dalam March 2009?
2. Adakah pembinaan KLIA East @ Labu suatu percubaan memperkuatkan masa depan politik seorang yang muda dan bercita-cita tinggi?
3. Mengapa KLIA East @ Labu dibina sedangkan KLIA masih digunakan pada tahap yang amat rendah berbanding dengan tahap yang ia boleh uruskan? (KLIA dibina untuk menampung 125 juta pengunjung setahun tetapi tahap kini hanyalah lebih kurang 25 juta.)
4. Mengapa membina KLIA East @ Labu sedangkan sudah ada LCCT di Sepang dan berbelanja RM244 juta hanya untuk keguaan tunggal AirAsia? (RM123.9 juta telah digunakan untuk memperbaiki dan meningkatkan taraf LCCT Sepang baru-baru ini dalam tahun 2008.)
5. Mengapa membina KLIA East @ Labu yang merupakan suatu ancaman keselamatan kerana sangat dekat dengan KLIA dan LCCT di Sepang di mana jarak antara mereka hanyalah 10 km. Pertubuhan Penerbangan Awam /ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) secara tegasnya mencadangkan bahawa jarak antara 2 lapangan terbang mesti sekurang-kurangnya 40 km?
6. Mengpa membina KLIA East @ Labu yang lebih jauh daripada Lembah Kelang di mana kebanyakkan penumpang datang daripada situ?
7. Mengapa membina KLIA East @ Labu pada tahap belanjaan besar untuk kegunaan tunggal AirAsia?
8. Selepas pembinaan KLIA East @ Labu telah siap, adakah LCCT di Sepang akan diabaikan?
9. Apakah cetusan manfaat antara Sime Darby (sebuah syarikat lingkaran kerajaan) dan AirAsia (sebuah syarikat persendirian) yang boleh mendatangkan erti manfaat kewangan untuk 2 buah syarikat bergabung usaha membina dan menjayakan KLIA East @ Labu?
10. Sime Darby tidak memiliki tanah yang cukup di Negeri Sembilan untuk pembinaan KLIA East @ Labu yang memerlukan 3,000 ekar tanah. Daripada siapakah Sime Darby akan beli tanah itu? Siapakah pemilik tanah? Adakah mereka kroni, ahli keluarga dan atau berhubung kait dengan Sime Darby dan AirAsia?
11. Jika KLIA East @ Labu adalah usaha sama antara Sime Darby dan AirAsia, adakah AirAsia memiliki dana yang secukupnya untuk membiayai prokjek ini yang menelan belanja RM1.6 billion pada waktu syarikat ini mengalami kerugian besar dalam urus niaga belian minyak masa depan dan terpaksa memenuhi pesanan 150 pesawat Airbus pada kadar suatu pesawat setiap bulan?
12. Adakah munasabah memikirkan pembinaan KLIA East @ Labu hanyalah sebagai tapak penyimpanan pesawat tersebut?
13. AirAsia menjual tiket secara pendahuluan untuk jangka 1 atau 2 tahun dan ini seumpama mengambil pembayaran terdahulu. Apa akan terjadi kepada wang umum ini jika AirAsia terpaksa gulung tikar kerana usaha KLIA East @ Labu?
14. Jika AirAsia dilaporkan bahawa berada dalam keadaan yang sihat mengapakah kebanyakan pemilik saham asing telah menjualkan saham AirAsia mereka?
15. Mengapa EPF adalah pemegang saham terbesar dalam AirAsia, iaitu rakan bersama KLIA East @ Labu dengan Sime Darby, dan mengapakah EPF terus beli saham AirAsia apabila ianya mengalami harga turun?
16. Adakah Sime Darby dan AirAsia mempunyai dana menyelenggarakan KLIA East @ Labu apabila penyelenggaraan ini menelan belanja lebih kurang RM40 juta setahun?
17. Adakah sebab untuk EPF menjadi pemegaang saham besar di AirAsia, yang kemasukkannya dalam usaha sama dengan Sime Darby membina KLIA East @ Labu dengan belanja tinggi, ialah supaya dapat menyelamatkan kedua syarikat ini dengan wang rakyat?
18. Meskipun pembinaan KLIA East @ Labu digelar sebagai usaha dibiayai dana persendirian, mengapakah pihak berkuasa tidak mengambil langkah berjaga-jaga dan memudaratkan keselamatan awam dengan memberikan kelulusannya?
Walaupun terdapat kebaikan pembangunan iktisad untuk Negeri Sembilan pada pandangan pertama, patutkah pihak berkuasa memberikan kelulusan ini atas pemikirkan, keselamatan dan kemudahan awam, serta persoalan-persoalan tersebut?
