Residents have right to details of one-way loop system, PJ council told

PETALING JAYA (May 20): Former Petaling Jaya councillor Mak Khuin Weng wants the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) to provide details on the one-way loop (OWL) system under the Freedom of Information Enactment.

Mak said in a statement that two months ago, a group of residents had requested for details surrounding the OWL traffic system that was implemented by MBPJ.

"The details were requested under the Freedom of Information Enactment (FOIE) implemented by the Pakatan Rakyat government.

"Of the list of information requested, certain documents were not granted without any reason given as to why the request was rejected while others were simply listed as being protected under the Official Secrets Act (OSA).

"The FOIE requires an explanation on why the requested information is denied.

"What little information that was released, however, is of grave concern to the Petaling Jaya ratepayers, especially with regards to the cost of the project," he said.

Mak said that their attempt to obtain a detailed construction plan of the OWL amounted to a tiny drawing of the whole 3.2km loop on an A4 paper.

"We received a verbal response from MBPJ that the consultant will release a drawing from time to time as they can’t issue the latest design.

"This A4 sized drawing does not constitute a legally approved plan. An inspection of the plan showed that it lacked many crucial details that are normally associated with a complete development plan," he said.

Mak said that a detailed construction plan is required in any development project to ensure the design is legally compliant with existing laws.

"There must be a detailed plan that can be presented to the public for scrutiny. The professionals or auditors tasked with overseeing the project has a reference point and the contractors are able to carry out the project as per the design; and to calculate a fair pricing," he said.

Mak said that MBPJ cannot claim to have done a public consultation exercise with this drawing because there are simply no answers to questions on how the plan treats pedestrians.

"This was evident when MBPJ held a feedback session on December 10, 2014, where the moderator and project consultant Datuk A. Sani Karim from the engineering consultant A. Sani and Associates Bhd could not answer many of the questions posed to him.

"There was also the unjustified payment and the lack of details on the plan, which raises the subsequent concern of the project’s cost, which is listed as RM23 million.

"Without the crucial construction details, we wonder how the council drafted and accepted the tender offers from contractors," he said.

Mak said that they had requested for the tender details, but were denied the documents as it was listed as being protected under the OSA by MBPJ.

"The whole purpose of a tender exercise is to promote transparency, and more so after the project has been awarded, there should be no reason for the project specifications to remain a secret.

"This secrecy is especially worrisome as MBPJ has admitted that the appointed contractor was paid RM2 million for work during the trial period of the project.

"From a visual glance of the physical works done during the trial period at the actual OWL, the work involved cutting mature trees, demolishing the road kerbs, putting up haphazardly place plastic barriers and little else. How was the RM2 million justified with this amount of work?" he said.

Mak said that MBPJ had promised a safety audit prior to the full implementation of the project, but was superseded by MBPJ councillor Ang Ming Ern and Bukit Gasing assemblyperson Rajiv Rishyakaran when they announced that the project would proceed even though a safety audit had yet to be presented to the public.

"This practice destroys the trust of the residents towards the government. The council have to sincerely address the safety concerns of the residents and pedestrians who use public transport within the vicinity of the OWL. Safety should be a prime concern," he said.

Mak hopes that both Rajiv and Ang could provide an explanation on the issues raised as they had both publicly voiced their support for the project.