• Pakatan Harapan (PH) offers a fairer deal to KTMB and its workers

    Media Statement by Pakatan Harapan on the 9th of August, 2017

    Pakatan Harapan (PH) offers a fairer deal to KTMB and its workers

    The Railway Network Access Agreement (RNAA) is an agreement between KTMB and the Railway Assets Corporation (RAC) which will see KTMB transferring all of its rolling stocks and lands to RAC. This exercise is supposed to be completed sometime in 2018.[1]

    Pakatan Harapan is opposed to the RNAA for the following reasons:

    (i)               This is a back door way for the government to provide access to crony companies to use the rail network to undermine KTMB’s core businesses including the freight and haulage business that comprises 42% of its revenue (RM216 out of RM516 million in Financial Year 2015).

    (ii)              This will increase the costs of operations for KTMB because RAC will charge KTMB for the use of the rolling stock.

    (iii)            RAC, with only 38 employees, is in no position to properly manage its assets including the maintenance of the rolling stock and the track. It is likely that these responsibilities would be sub-contracted out to other crony companies.

    KTMB has suffered accumulated losses of RM855 million from 2009 to 2015 because of low ticket prices and expensive procurement contracts. For example, KTMB wasted RM85 million on a contract for an Automatic Fare Collection (AFC) ticketing system that could not be implemented.[2] More recently, the then President of KTM, Datuk Sarbini Tijan, was asked to go on leave pending an internal inquiry on procurement deals worth millions of ringgit.[3]

    RAC has also not been profitable. It has accumulated losses of RM372 million from 2009 to 2015. RAC does not have enough staff to properly manage the RM36 billion in assets including land. Its mismanagement of train maintenance contract payments was reported in the Auditor General’s report in 2013.[4]

    Pakatan Harapan promises a fairer deal to KTMB and its 6000 workers including:

    1)     Cancelling the RNAA between RAC and KTMB

    2)     Transferring the assets in RAC to KTMB as a way to maximize the value of these assets. The small size of RAC prevents it from increasing its revenue from ventures such as transit oriented development and advertising and retail. These assets should be transferred to KTMB and KTMB should be allowed to expand its expertise in these areas. This will be the way forward to KTMB to regain its profitability and also to minimize the need to increase ticket prices.

    3)     Review the cost and suitability of the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) project. The assets under ECRL i.e. the rolling stock, the track, the land and the stations, will not be owned by RAC or KTM. Instead, it will be owned by a newly established 100% Ministry of Finance Owned Entity, Malaysia Rail Line (MRL) Sdn Bhd. It has been reported that the ECRL service will be run by another operator which has not been named.[5] Not only is the cost of the ECRL extraordinarily high, it is very likely its operations will be awarded via direct negotiation.

    4)     Implement open tenders for all procurements of assets and services by KTMB

    5)     Not to privatise KTMB

    With these policies, we can chart the path towards financial profitability for KTMB, guarantee continued low prices for the passengers and ensure employment security and welfare for thousands of railway workers.

    Tan Sri Muhyidddin Yassin, President of BERSATU
    Liew Chin Tong, MP for Kluang
    Dato’ Abdullah Sani bin Abdul Hamid, MP for Kuala Langat
    Dr. Hatta Ramli, MP for Kuala Krai

    [1] http://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/transport-ministry-says-agreement-will-not-cost-4000-job-losses-ktmb

    [2] http://tonypua.blogspot.my/2011/01/ktmb-rm85m-contract-to-company-without.html andhttp://ongkianming.com/2015/08/22/press-statement-prime-minister-najib-should-look-at-the-failure-of-the-automatic-fare-collection-afc-system-rather-than-asking-for-new-ktm-ticket-counters-to-be-added/

    [3] http://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2017/01/11/rail-controversy/

    [4] http://english.astroawani.com/business-news/highlights-auditor-generals-report-2013-series-2-37880

    [5] http://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2017/03/29/east-coast-rail-kicks-off/

  • The Minister in charge of SPAD has to answer to taxi and ehailing drivers if a Drivers’ Tribunal is not established under the Land Public Transport Act (Amendment) 2010

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 27th of July, 2017

    The Minister in charge of SPAD has to answer to taxi and ehailing drivers if a Drivers’ Tribunal is not established under the Land Public Transport Act (Amendment) 2010

    Earlier this month, in a dialogue session organized by the DAP with ehailing drivers, one of the main complaints we heard was that there was no independent body or a third party which the drivers can appeal to in they disagreed with a decision by the ehailing company they are driving for. For example, we heard complaints from a number of drivers who claimed to have been banned or suspended from an ehailing company for no apparent reason. Many taxi drivers also have complaints against the companies they are driving for. They also have no independent body or third body which can hear their complaints and make a ruling.

    The Land Public Transport Act (Amendment) 2010, which is currently being debated in parliament, does not address this problem at all. As such, I proposed a motion to introduce a new section in this act to establish a “Taxi Drivers’ and Ehailing Drivers’ Tribunal” (Appendix 2). This tribunal is similar to the Consumers’ Tribunal which was established in Section 85 to Section 122 of the Consumers’ Protection Act 1999. Sadly, my motion to introduce this tribunal was rejected by the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat (Appendix 1). In her reply in parliament, the Minister in charge of tabling this bill, Dato’ Sri Nancy Shukri rejected the need for a tribunal because she said that SPAD can currently handle the complaints of the taxi drivers and later on, of the ehailing drivers when ehailing is legalised after the gazetting of this bill and the ehailing licenses have been approved.

    The problem with this suggestion is that SPAD may not have the legal jurisdiction to compel the ehailing companies to follow its decisions on disputes between drivers and their companies. For example, SPAD may find that an ehailing company owes a driver thousands of ringgit in unpaid fares that is subject to a dispute. Can SPAD compel the ehailing company to pay this driver his unpaid fares? Or will the driver have to go to court to seek his unpaid fares? The advantage of a tribunal is that it is a cost-effective way for drivers have their complaints heard without the need to pay expensive legal and court fees. There is also the question of whether SPAD has the capacity to investigate and hear all the cases involving ehailing drivers after this act is passed and gazetted.

    This tribunal is not just for ehailing drivers. It can also be used by taxi drivers who have complaints against their companies.

    Since this tribunal is not likely to be established under this act, I call upon all ehailing and taxi drivers who have complaints against their companies to call the SPAD complaint hotline (1800-88-7723), SMS SPAD at 15888 or email SPAD at aduan@spad.gov.my to lodge their complaints, if they have any, against their respective companies, to show SPAD that there is an urgent need for a Drivers’ Tribunal to hear and to rule on these complaints.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

    Appendix 1: Letter from the Speaker rejecting my motion to introduce a Taxi Drivers and Ehailing Drivers Tribunal in the Land Public Transport Act (Amendment) 2010

    Appendix 2: Motion to introduce a Taxi and Ehailing Drivers’ Tribunal in the Land Public Transport Act (Amendment) 2010

  • Challenges for the MRT and public transportation in the Klang Valley

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 24th of July, 2017

    Challenges for the MRT and public transportation in the Klang Valley

    The full MRT line from Sungai Buloh to Kajang has been operational for a week already. After the initial fanfare and trains packed with Ministers, MRT has to now face the challenges of (i) reaching its daily ridership targets (ii) ensuring accessibility, affordability and integration and (iii) maintaining financial sustainability.

    1) Reaching its daily ridership targets

    This may seem like an obvious statement but the main challenge for the MRT is to get more and more people to use it. According to MRT, the planned capacity for the Sungai Buloh-Kajang line (Line 1) is a daily ridership of about 400,000 passengers. Each train set has four cars with a total capacity of 1200 passengers and the trains will run at a frequency of approximately 3.5 minutes.[1] More recently, this figure has been revised downwards to a ridership of 150,000 a day.[2]

    It will take some time before users get used to taking the MRT including getting to know the MRT route, the feeder bus schedules and route, how to use the MRT to connect to other forms of public transportation such as the LRT, KTM and Rapid KL buses and the stations which have car parks.

    To put the 150,000 daily ridership number in context, it is useful to compare to the daily ridership numbers for the Kelana Jaya and Ampang LRT lines (See Figure 1 below)

    The Kelana Jaya line is the busiest with a daily ridership of 218,888 in Q1 2017 followed by the Ampang line with a daily ridership of 155,217. The KTM Komuter has a daily ridership of 111,163 and the KL Monorail trails behind with a daily ridership of 54,725.

    The daily ridership of the LRT, KTM Komuter and Monorail experienced a decline in Q1 2016 due to the significant fare hike which took place in December 2015. In fact, all these rail lines have not recovered from their pre-Q1 2016 daily ridership numbers even though the LRT extension to Putra Heights started its operations in June 2016. The increase in the daily ridership numbers from Q2 2016 to Q3 2016 was hardly significant. The daily ridership of the KL Monorail reached a four year low in Q1 2017 partly due to the delay in the delivery of the four car monorail by SCOMI to Prasarana (The dispute between SCOMI and Prasarana is still tied up in the courts).[3]

    The whole point of building an MRT line rather than a less expensive LRT line is to increase the passenger capacity. While the initial targeted daily ridership of 150,000 is a good target to aim for in the short term, in the longer run, the MRT Line 1 ridership should eventually exceed that of the Kelana Jaya LRT line. In the meantime, MRT has to face the challenge to increase its daily ridership by ten-fold, from 15,000 before the line was fully operational to Kajang to the targeted 150,000 now that Line 1 is fully operational.

    2) Accessibility, Affordability and Integration

    To increase its ridership, MRT has to be aware of the need for accessibility to its stations, the need to maintain affordable fares and integration to other Rail Lines.

    In terms of accessibility, MRT has done a decent job in its feeder bus network that connects nearby housing areas to its stations. (The feeder bus network to LRT stations in comparison is far more limited). The bus routes can be downloaded from the MRT website[4] although as far as I know, the routes and the bus schedules have not been installed at the bus stops yet. There is also no MRT app which shows these bus routes. Making this information more accessible will channel more people to take the MRT.

    In terms of affordability, the price of the MRT fares is not too different from the LRT. A cashless trip from Kajang to Sungai Buloh costs RM5.50 compared to RM5.30 for a cashless trip from Gombak to Putra Heights. SPAD set the MRT fares so that they would be in line with the LRT fares. Dollar for dollar, our LRT and MRT fares are still more expensive than Singapore especially since Singapore practices integrated fares where a journey from home to work involving a bus trip and an MRT trip counts as one trip whereas in Malaysia, one has to pay separately for a bus trip, an LRT trip and an MRT trip. Many people are taking advantage of the 50% discounted fare now, which lasts until the 31st of August. I think this is a good move in that it will allow more people to get used to taking the MRT during this period. The test will come after the 31st of August when fares revert to their normal rates. Will there be a significant fall in ridership similar to what was experienced by the Sunway BRT when ridership fell by more than 60% as a result of the imposition of ridiculously expensive fares?[5] Only time will tell.

    One way in which MRT can make it more affordable is to introduce a monthly pass at a cost of between RM100 to RM150 which entitles a passenger to make unlimited trips. Most metro lines in the world have some form of weekly or monthly pass with unlimited trips. My RAPID used to offer this card for the LRT but has since been phased out. One of the challenges in introducing this monthly card may be the fear of lost revenue on the part of My RAPID (more on this below).

    Finally, the MRT needs to be integrated with other forms of rail transportation in order to increase its ridership. For Line 1, there are numerous stations which connect to the KTM (Kajang MRT), to the Ampang LRT Line (Maluri MRT, Merdeka MRT), to the Sri Petaling LRT Line (Merdeka MRT), to the Kelana Jaya LRT Line (Pasar Seni MRT) and to KL Sentral (Muzium Negara MRT). As the rail network in the Klang Valley expands after the MRT Line 2 and the LRT Line 3 are built, more stations will be integrated with the MRT lines. This kind of integration not only increases ridership on MRT Line 1 but will also have a positive spillover effect on the other LRT lines. The only negative effect may be for some of the KTM stations such as Kajang since the frequency of trains for the MRT is much higher than the KTM Komuter.

    3) Financial sustainability

    Any discussion on the sustainability of public transportation has to involve the question of cost. The cost of constructing the MRT Line 1 has been the subject of public debate. The government announced that the total construction cost (not including land acquisition and the rolling stock i.e. the trains) was RM21 billion, two billion lower than the initially projected cost of RM23 billion.[6] Others have disputed this cost including how much was paid to MMC-Gamuda, the project delivery partner (PDP).[7]

    What is less well-known and less debated is the fact that MRT Corp, which is the asset owner of the MRT line, does not own the debt associated with the cost of construction. A Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) called Dana Infra have issued bonds to finance the MRT Line 1. At the time of writing, Dana Infra has issued a total of RM36.9 billion in bonds (We don’t have a breakdown of how much of this was spent on MRT Line 1). This amount is projected to increase as the construction of Line 2 begins.

    The advantage of the separation of debt and asset ownership is that MRT Corp does not have to worry about the debt servicing costs, which even based on the construction cost of RM21 billion, will amount to approximately RM1 billion a year. This way, MRT can focus on expanding its ridership and earning non-fare revenue through other means.

    As the asset owner, MRT has signed an agreement with Rapid Rail Sdn Bhd, which is owned by PRASARANA, to operate and run the train and feeder bus services. PRASARANA already has the experience and the facilities to hire and train both bus and train drivers so it makes sense for the operations to be given to Rapid KL. The agreement between MRT and Rapid Rail also states that MRT will receive all non-fare revenue while Rapid Rail will collect all fare revenue (MRT fare as well as feeder bus fare).

    The challenge for PRASARANA is to ensure that its MRT related operations are profitable. I had written last year regarding the financial challenges facing PRASARANA.[8] Because of its high accumulated debt, its revenue of roughly half a billion RM was barely sufficient to cover its financing costs. With the increase in PRASARANA’s debt from the LRT extension and from the ongoing construction of the LRT 3 line, its debt servicing cost will definitely increase. It remains to be seen if PRASARANA can earn an operational profit from its MRT operations. The feeder bus network is likely to be loss making, at least initially, while the train operations will only be profitable if the ridership targets can be met. How long will PRASRANA be willing to run these operations at a loss? How long will the Ministry of Finance subsidize PRASARANA while it is running up these operational losses for the MRT line? We have to wait and see.

    In the meantime, MRT faces the challenge of raising its income through non-fare revenue strategies such as property development around its stations, advertising and retail. Since MRT has no fare related revenue, this has put more emphasis on the need to look for non-fare revenue sources. MRT opened up advertising concession agreements for its interior, outdoor and train advertising packages. Big Tree Outdoor (BTO) which won the outdoor advertising concession, estimates that as much as RM300 million can be generated from this 10-year contract.[9]

    MRT has also sold station naming rights at four of its stations which costs RM1.2 to RM1.5 million a year.[10]

    According to MRT’s commercial and land management director, Datuk Haris Fadzilah Hassan, MRT Corp is expecting to earn between RM22 million and RM25 million from retail, advertising and parking revenue annually. Whether or not this is sufficient for MRT to cover its operational expenses remains to be seen especially since its administrative expenses for the Financial Year 2016 totalled RM53 million.

    Perhaps, MRT can supplement its income via transit oriented property development, especially in selected locations along the MRT Line 2 which runs from Sungai Buloh through Serdang and all the way to Putrajaya.

    4) Is MRT a game-changer?

    Some people have commented that MRT is a ‘game-changer’. I don’t quite agree, at least for now. There is no denying that the rail system in the Klang Valley has increased its area of coverage over the past 20 years. The introduction of the MRT should be seen as an additional rail service in this larger rail network.

    This is not to deny that taking the new MRT trains is a much more pleasant experience compared to the LRT. The stations are larger and better designed, there are more Park & Ride facilities available and the trains are wider. On Saturday, I parked at the Kajang MRT and took the train to Muzium Negara and then to Pasar Seni before going back to Kajang. I have also seen many of the MRT feeder buses going to previously unserved housing areas in my parliamentary constituency to connect passengers to the Cheras Batu 11, the BTHO, the Taman Connaught and the Bukit Dukung MRT stations, just to name a few.

    Perhaps the MRT can be called a game-changer when Line 2 (and perhaps Line 3) has been built and opened. But for now, I will do my part in encouraging the voters in my constituency to use public transportation especially the MRT and at the same time, monitor closely to see if MRT can successfully face the challenges I’ve posed in this statement. I wish them nothing but the best!

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

    Selfie at Kajang MRT Station Names

    Long Escalator at Muzium Negara Station

    Inside the MRT train

    Screen above passengers showing next station

    Inside the MRT train

    [1] http://www.mymrt.com.my/en/sbk/the-mrt-sungai-buloh-kajang-line

    [2] http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/the-cheat-sheet-for-klang-valleys-newest-ride-the-mrt-sbk

    [3] http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/07/11/no-end-in-sight-to-kls-monorail-woes-as-scomi-prasarana-dispute-lingers/

    [4] http://www.mymrt.com.my/en/sbk/travel-info

    [5] http://penanginstitute.org/v3/research/penang-institute-in-kuala-lumpur/the-sunway-bus-rapid-transit-brt-line-lessons-for-the-future

    [6] http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/mrt-corp-keeps-sungai-buloh-kajang-line-within-rm23b-budget

    [7] http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/mrt-corp-keeps-sungai-buloh-kajang-line-within-rm23b-budget

    [8] http://ongkianming.com/2016/08/09/press-statement-five-reasons-why-public-transportation-in-malaysia-is-more-expensive-compared-to-singapore/

    [9] https://www.nst.com.my/news/2016/09/176703/bto-led-consortium-wins-mrt-advertising-concession

    [10] http://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2017/07/11/four-mrt-stations-along-sbk-line-to-be-branded/

  • SPAD should ensure a level-playing field between taxi and ehailing drivers and provide these drivers with proper protections and safeguards

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang and Liew Chin Tong, MP for Kluang on the 6th of July, 2017

    SPAD should ensure a level-playing field between taxi and ehailing drivers and provide these drivers with proper protections and safeguards

    With an estimated 37,000 taxi drivers and an estimated 60,000 Uber and Grab drivers in the Klang Valley, this form of public transportation not only provides a crucial service to consumers but also an important source of employment for the drivers themselves. As more and more Malaysians are joining the ranks of e-hailing drivers (GRAB and UBER), either on a part time or on a full-time basis, it is crucial for the Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) to ensure that there is a level playing field between the regular taxi drivers and the e-hailing drivers and also to ensure that the taxi and e-hailing drivers themselves are given proper protections and safeguards.

    In a web-based survey conducted in BM and in Chinese by the DAP Research team where we obtained close to 300 replies, we found that 40% of UBER and GRAB drivers are driving their vehicles on a full-time basis and another 53% are driving on a part time basis not as a hobby but as a job. In other words, most UBER and GRAB drivers surveyed depend greatly on their income as drivers. A significant proportion of the drivers surveyed – 64% – have at least a diploma which indicates that many with tertiary qualifications look at e-hailing as a viable form of employment. Furthermore, our survey found that 34% or about one-third of e-hailing drivers are based outside the Klang Valley. This number is likely to grow as UBER and GRAB expand to the cities and smaller towns outside KL and Selangor.

    The average monthly wages for full time drivers were estimated to be approximately RM3200. While this may seem like a decent amount of earnings, it does not take into account the maintenance cost of the vehicles which can average more than RM1000 a month. While e-hailing companies provides personal accident insurance for drivers and passengers, the car insurance and repairs cost are totally borne by the drivers themselves.

    75% of the drivers surveyed feel that the 20-25% commission rate charged by UBER / GRAB are unfair and more than 60% of drivers want the government to regulate the amount of commission which the e-hailing companies can charge. In addition, some drivers also feel that they have no avenues of appeal if they are suspended or banned by UBER / GRAB because of unreasonable complaints by customers. The cases of unfair suspensions will become more serious as the number of full time UBER / GRAB drivers increases, including those who have bought new vehicles for the purpose of becoming full time e-hailing drivers.

    While the proposed amendments to the Land Public Transport Act 2010 and the Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987 are a step in the right direction, much more needs to be done including:

    (i)               Increasing the awareness of e-hailing drivers on the details of the amendments

    (ii)              Ensuring that the e-hailing market does not become a monopoly / oligopoly to the detriment of drivers and passengers

    (iii)            Regulating the commission rates which e-hailing companies can charge the drivers

    (iv)            Setting up a Tribunal to hear the appeals of e-hailing drivers who feel they have been unfairly banned / suspended by the e-hailing companies

    (v)              Ensuring that there is a level playing field between the taxi drivers and e-hailing drivers in terms of fares and wages.

    The end goal should be a market whereby taxi drivers as well as e-hailing drivers are properly compensated and the taxi companies and e-hailing companies cannot abuse their oligopolistic / monopolistic positions to mistreat the drivers and give passengers a bad service experience.

    Document: Self-Employed E-Hailing Services Drivers (SEEDs) Survey Findings (5 July 2017)

  • Feedback and Clarification on the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL)

    CEO of SPAD
    Encik Mohd Azharuddin bin Mat Sah
    Block D, Platinum Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2,
    Kuala Lumpur Sentral, 50470 Kuala Lumpur

    Yang Berusaha Encik Mohd Azharuddin,

    RE: Feedback and Clarification on the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL)

    Based on Section 84 of the Land Transport Act 2010, SPAD began the 3-month process of public consultation and seeking public feedback on the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) on the 8th of March 2017.[1] As a Member of Parliament and a concerned citizen, I hope that SPAD can provide clarification and information on the following points raised below.

    1. Provide detailed breakdown of the cost of the ECRL

    In a report by the Edge in November 2016, Transport Minister Dato Seri Liow Tiong Lai said the following to explain the increase in the estimated cost of the East Coast Rail Line (ECRL) from RM29 billion to RM55 billion. “Previously, the length [of the rail link] was 545km; now it is 600km and this does not include the part from Gombak to Port Klang”[2] But on the 13th of May, 2017, during the signing ceremony of Phase Two of the ECRL project, which covers the track from the Integrated Transport Terminal (ITT) Gombak to Port Klang, the Treasury Secretary General, Tan Sri Irwan Serigar was reported to have said that the construction costs for this section for this section of the ECRL was RM9 billion, which, combined with the RM46 billion cost for Phase One for Wakaf Bahru in Kelantan to ITT Gombak in Selangor, would bring the total cost of the ECRL to RM55 billion.[3] This contradicts what was said by Liow Tiong Lai. In the interest of transparency, the government should publish a detailed breakdown of the estimated cost of the entire ECRL including the cost of the 7 segments of the ECRL and the 6 Spur Lines:

    The government should also provide an estimated breakdown of the land acquisition costs which will involve the government buying 8699 lots of private land covering 8376.88 acres or 3390 hectares.

    2. Clarify if the cost of the project only involves a SINGLE TRACK railway line as it is described in the EIA report

    In the Executive Summary of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report on the ECRL, it is stated that ‘the ECRL will be an electrified single track railway line built on a double track formation, approximately 532.3km for the main line with another 65.9km of spur lines.”  Does this mean that only a single track will be built for the ECRL even though a railway base that is wide enough for two tracks will be built? If this is the case, then the government needs to explain why a project which costs an estimated RM55 billion will only pay for ONE TRACK.

    I would like to point that the promotional video and materials shown in the public display, on the MRL website and in the youtube videos all indicate that the ECRL has two tracks, not one.

    3. Clarify the total length of bridges and viaducts for the ECRL

    In a statement on the 9th of November, 2016 by Minister in charge of the Economic Planning Unit (EPU), Datuk Rahman Dahlan, he said that the ECRL will involve building 110km of bridges.[4] Based on the SPAD public display drawings, a section by section calculation showed 69 bridges with a combined length of 17.7km and 33 viaducts with a combined length of 74.6km. Therefore, the total length of bridges and viaducts (assuming that viaducts are also bridges) is 92.3km. There is a difference of 17.7km between Rahman Dahlan’s statement and our calculations based on the SPAD public display drawings. A difference of 17.7km can translate into billions of ringgit of construction costs. This needs to be clarified by the government.

    4. Explain the rush to sign the agreement for Phase 2 of the ECRL connecting ITT Gombak with Port Klang

    My colleague, ADUN for Damansara Utama, Yeo Bee Yin, had earlier raised the issue of the missing link from ITT Gombak to Klang in the current EIA report available for public display.[5] SPAD responded by saying that there was no missing link and that the link from ITT Gombak to Klang is part of Phase 2 of the ECRL project. SPAD also said that “when the due processes are completed and the extension is ready for execution, SPAD will hold a public display of the conditionally approved railway scheme for this alignment prior to execution”[6] If the due processes have not been completed, why did the government sign a supplementary agreement with the China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) during Najib’s visit to Beijing recently for Phase 2 of the ECRL Project?[7]

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament, Serdang

    [1] http://www.spad.gov.my/media-centre/media-releases/2017/public-inspection-railway-scheme-east-coast-rail-link-ecrl-opens
    [2] http://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/liow-explains-big-jump-ecrl-cost
    [3] https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2017/05/238867/najib-witnesses-signing-ecrl-phase-two-construction-agreement
    [4] https://www.nst.com.my/news/2016/11/187009/statement-ecrl-project-not-hastily-decided-proposed-2007
    [5] http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/379638
    [6] http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/379772
    [7] https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2017/05/238867/najib-witnesses-signing-ecrl-phase-two-construction-agreement