by Radhika Iyer-O’Sullivan
Jan 20, 09 3:55pm
Malaysiakini

I am a Malaysian currently residing and working in Dubai. On Dec 25, 2008, I flew with Malaysian Airlines flight MH161 to Kuala Lumpur to visit my parents. I was in seat 36H (an aisle seat) and the seat next to me, 36K (window seat) was vacant. The flight stopped over at Karachi for an hour.

In Karachi, more passengers boarded the plane. One male passenger boarded, showed his boarding pass to a stewardess and she pointed to seat beside me (36K). The man looked at me and said, ‘She’s a Hindu, I cannot sit beside her.’ The stewardess responded, ‘So what? What’s wrong with Hindu?’ The man then began to yell and shout that he would not sit next to a Hindu.

The crew insisted that he had to because there were no other seats available because the plane was full. Then this passenger sat down but began to verbally abuse my faith and the crew members. I sat in my seat but was physically cringing away from him. The flight supervisor was summoned and until then the man was still seated next to me. Imagine my shock, horror and fear in being next to a hostile, abusive person.

One steward did stand next to me but did not offer any help and I did not feel safe or reassured. I reached out and told that steward that I did not feel safe anymore. I said this to him softly in English and he told me to sit and wait. He then walked off and a female crew member took his place. All this time I was under the impression that this hostile passenger beside me was a Pakistani.

I then told the stewardess in Malay that this man should not be seated beside me after what he had said about me. There were other Malaysian passengers sitting in the same area and all of them heard me. She smiled and merely nodded. Read the rest of this entry »

Letters
by J Chan

The storm that is generated by the government’s decision to give the go-ahead to the Sime Darby-AirAsia consortium to build a brand new airport at Labu continues to blow unabated.

On the one side is a government GLC, Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB) which is being accused by AirAsia of not being able to meet AirAsia’s needs of no-frills service, and yet attempting to charge AirAsia “exorbitant” landside charges.

On the other side is MAHB which, through its website, defends its record of meeting clients’ expectations, and asserting that airport charges are being set by the Government, not by the airport operator.

What the public is inclined to accept is that the present LCCT is in a shambles, and is probably on a par with some domestic Indian airports.

MAHB defends this, as they have spent RM 170 million to build a new extension, which is now partially opened, and they say that the upgraded LCCT should be able to cater for up to 10 million passengers per year until 2013. After that, MAHB says that they have plans to build another terminal that is contiguous with the KLIA main terminal, and that this terminal could be ready by 2013.

AirAsia says that this is baloney, for MAHB have never really delivered commitments on time (they point to the current state of affairs at LCCT as an example) and that any delays would negatively impact AirAsia’s business model. Read the rest of this entry »

Letters
by J.C.

I read with apprehension at the recent announcements by Sime Darby Berhad and Air Asia with respect to their receiving government approval to build a new low-cost terminal at Labu, Negeri Sembilan. The announcements coincided with a statement by Malaysia Airports Berhad (MAHB) that it is ready to construct a new low-cost terminal to replace the existing LCCT at KLIA. The statements, and the subsequent comments by Air Asia spokespersons, gave the impressions that a new low-cost terminal is urgently needed, that MAHB has not been responsive to the needs of Air Asia, that Air Asia could easily save 15 pct of operating costs by moving to the new terminal at Labu and that not a single sen of public money will be utilised.

The following questions need to be answered by the government:

1. Was the approval given to the Sime Darby-Air Asia consortium based on the construction of a totally new airport, complete with runway(s) ? No one has indicated that there will be new runways, but it would be ridiculous to assume that planes could land on the existing KLIA runways and taxi the 7 km to the new Labu terminal. Sime announced that the new terminal would take up approximately 3000 acres of land, and surely a terminal without runways would not require such a sizeable landmass. If there are going to be runways, who would be paying for the Air Traffic Control (ATC) facilities ? Who would be charging passengers for airport taxes ?

2. Was any cost-benefit comparison made with respect to the construction of a new terminal at KLIA as opposed to a new terminal (or should we say airport) at Labu ?

3. When the government agreed with the sponsors of the new Labu airport that the entire project would be privately funded, did it take into consideration issues like the KTM Komuter link from Labu to KL Sentral ? KTM would be expected to build the link, and this is government money. We all know that rail links are only viable with subsidy from the public sector. Look at ERL. After 10 years of operations, their debt is still guaranteed by the government of Malaysia, and they are still being subsidised annually through a minimum ridership clause in their concession agreement. Would the roads leading to Labu be privately funded or would they have to be built by the Works Ministry ? Read the rest of this entry »

Letters
by Moaz Yusuf Ahmad
Subang Jaya,
Selangor

RE: Putrajaya monorail report and Putrajaya Corp. bus purchases

When it was announced in early 2008 that the government was taking another look at the Putrajaya monorail, it could hardly have come at a better time. This was in late April/early May, and I had just finished participating in the Majlis Bajet Consultation 2009. My experience trying to get from Persiaran Putrajaya (the site of the Finance Ministry) to Putrajaya Sentral was ironic. Though the bus fleet had improved (in terms of size) information about bus services and bus shelters was still non-existent on the main island.

My comments about the poor infrastructure for the bus services and the lack of demand to justify a monorail would strike a chord with many people. They agreed with me about the irony of investing millions of RM to build a monorail instead of investing a few thousand RM to build bus shelters that could be enjoyed by many.

Now that the report on the monorail has been completed it would be very interesting to hear what it has to say. Sadly, the government is keeping quiet about the report. Read the rest of this entry »