Malaysians today feel angry and outraged when they read that the Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu is asking for RM22 million to inspect new government buildings in Putrajaya for defects, on top of an unending list of government building mishaps.
The spanking new RM290 million court complex in Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur has undoubtedly earned instant international notoriety with the daily defects since its opening last week.
Yesterday, the court complex was shut down by a power failure. This morning I receive complaints from a lawyer of leaks in the criminal courts. This is on top of the ceiling collapse, cracks on the wall, faulty toilets and air-conditioning breakdowns.
Had a certificate for fitness for occupation (CF) been issued for the largest court complex in the world, and if so when. If no CF was issued, why was the court complex allowed to be used; and if there was CF, whether actions would be taken against those who had been so negligent as to issue the CF when there are still so many defects, including structural ones, which had to be rectified?
But what has shocked and befuddled Malaysians is the RM22 million claim by Samy Vellu to inspect brand new buildings in Putrajaya for defects. How much would Samy need to inspect buildings outside Putrajaya, for instance the RM290 million court complex or the RM1.9 billion SMART Tunnel, for defects? What has happened to the trouble-prone MATRADE Building? Will it be again in tens or hundreds of millions of ringgit?
Malaysians feel that they are treated as “suckers” and fools, where even when mistakes are made whether because of negligence, irresponsibility, corruption or abuses of power, it is finally the taxpayers who have to pay the new bill while the culture of impunity holds sway for those responsible for defects in government buildings and public construction projects.
This is clearly unacceptable. Malaysians want to know who is responsible for the additional RM22 million public expenditure needed to inspect the new government buildings in Putrajaya for defects and why those responsible for the defects should not be made to pay for 100% of the unnecessary outlay