I refer to the Malaysiakini article Of accountability, transparency and vigilance and the Malaysiakini report Labu LCCT five times cheaper than KLIA Sepang .

In the midst of the ongoing debate for the nationalising of the toll expressways, the government’s apparent predicament on the Pahang-Selangor Water Transfer Project and the Labu LCCT, I as a practicing professional in project management feel compelled to comment on the nation’s propensity for ‘failed’ mega-projects because of the total lack of accountability, transparency and vigilance.

At the outset, it must be said that the ‘failure’ of the mega-projects is not in the failure of engineering, execution and completion. For this, the nation has at its disposal a vast and competent pool of technical expertise as is available in any other developed country in the world.

It is in the government’s failure to deliver value and benefits to the rakyat that is the issue. The government is prone to paying a disproportionate and unusually higher price for the projects which become a heavy burden, inevitably to be borne by the rakyat, in tolls, tariffs, taxes and the like.

So, why does the government pay such high prices, more than anywhere else, despite the same technical expertise being available? It is because of its poor policies, bad decision-making and the oft-repeated claim of conflict of interests, all of which fester in an environment lacking in accountability, transparency and vigilance.

The news report referred to above commented that the government had been forced to hire expensive Japanese contractors for the KLIA project and this looks set to repeat itself for the Pahang-Selangor Water Transfer project because of the Japanese soft loans.

Be that as it may, it is even more pertinent to note as has been widely reported in the press that the Malaysian government has acknowledged its predicament in the selection of the competing Japanese contractors, where the government is reportedly resisting attempts by the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (Jica) to influence the choice of the successful bidder for the water tunnel contract.

It was initially reported that Jica had insisted on the lowest bid, which under international tender processes should be rejected as it was a conditional bid, while the government had preferred the second lowest bid which was the only bid that was compliant and not conditional.

The government had made it clear that the tender for the water transfer project should be a benchmark for open tenders in the country. Further, the conditions of the lowest bid could cause a variation order making it more expensive than the compliant bid.

The government, in defence of its preference, had reportedly invoked the issue of its ‘sovereign rights’ in the tender exercise and was reportedly even prepared to forego the Japanese soft loan.

It should be noted that the conditions of the lowest bid, reportedly regarding the ‘hardness’ of the rock, is a fundamental but technically complex aspect which crucially impacts on the costs and time for any tunneling work, and should thus be expected to be the central risk in the bid for the tunneling works.

Any such conditions to the bid will surely be expected to undermine the tender process and may be speculated to have been embedded to extract an unfair advantage.

Interestingly, it appears from recent reports that the lowest bidder is now prepared to drop the conditions of their bid in an attempt to secure the project, and that the government may be reconsidering its position and expected to decide in the next few weeks. It may be supposed that the government is now put in a better and easier position to do so.

But is it, really? Is it really easier for the government to now justify its decision, made against international tender processes?

Can the government be sure the whole tender exercise has not been undermined or exploited by the embedment of crucial conditions to gain an unfair advantage? Can the government assure the rakyat there is no conflict of interest in the ensuing behind-the-scene wrangling?

Can the government be sure there has not been undue influence or manipulation in the tender exercise? Can the Government still claim the water transfer project is the benchmark for open tenders in the country?

Is the government still keeping to its pledge for open tenders and if so to whose or which standards? Has the government been able to retain its credibility and ‘sovereign rights’?

In conclusion, the government has been given the mandate by the rakyat and owes it to the rakyat to be accountable, transparent and vigilant. The government must always be firm and steadfast in upholding and implementing its policies even in the face of adversity, but has it?

Or has it merely gone on with its past practices despite the promise for an open and accountable government?