Press Statement By Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng In Kuala Lumpur On 18.10.2013.
Syarikat Prasarana Negara Berhad(Prasarana) Group Managing Director Shahril Mokhtar Should Not Rely On Insults In His Tweets That Demeans Me As A “Cendol Seller” To Evade Explaining How Prasarana’s Business Model Based On Double-Standards Can Be Both Profitable And Fulfill Its Statutory Duty Of Providing A “Public Good” Of A Reliable And Efficient Public Transport.
Syarikat Prasarana Negara Berhad(Prasarana) Group Managing Director Datuk Shahril Mokhtar should not rely on insults in his tweets, that demeans me as a “cendol seller” to evade explaining how prasarana’s business model based on double-standards can be both profitable and fulfill its statutory duty of providing a “public good” of a reliable and efficient public transport.
I do not personally feel insulted to be labelled as a cendol seller as this is an honest occupation in Penang. However my supporters feel this is bad behaviour from a Group Managing Director of Prasarana to make personal attacks against the Penang Chief Minister.
Clearly Shahril shows that he is bankrupt of ideas in managing a Government Linked Corporation(GLC) with billions of ringgit in assets and responsible for the country’s LRT and Monorail systems as well as operates RapidKL and RapidPenang. He is incompetent, unprofessional and unfit to be a Group Managing Director of Prasarana, if his response to public criticism is to make personal insults.
I had issued a statement on 15 October questioning the rationale of Prasarana’s rejection of the Penang state government’s offer of a RM 10 million annual grant in 2011 to provide free bus rides throughout the state of Penang for 7 hours during the peak hours of 6-9am and 4.30pm-8.30pm from Mondays to Fridays.
In his tweet, Shahril had labelled me a “cendol seller” in response to my earlier public statement:-
Shahril Mokhtar @ShahrilMokhtar 15 Oct
“Daily sales for selling chendol during peak hrs generates RM500 but 1 smart fellow suggest give free chendol same hrs & he wld give RM300.”
Datuk Shahril Mokhtar had said that accepting the RM10 million annual grant from the Penang state government would worsen the government-linked company’s (GLC) financial position, but he did not state the amount of losses that would be incurred if the offer was accepted. This offer was concluded verbally with all parties concerned during a meeting in Kuala Lumpur in 2011 but was never implemented even though the state government had followed up in writing.
If Prasarana is suddenly so obsessed about profits, then why did they pay in 2011, 1.5 to 2 months bonuses to their staff which is higher than the 1 month bonus received by ordinary government civil servants, despite Prasarana suffering huge losses of RM 763 million? The Auditor-General’s Report 2012 revealed that seven Government-linked corporations(GLCs) rewarded their employees with bonuses despite recording combined losses amounting to RM 2 billion in 2011.
Prasarana paid its employees between 1.5 months to two months bonus despite suffering a loss of RM763 million in 2011, whilst Cyvberview paid its staff two and a half months bonus despite losing RM 254 million. No one questions those who receive a one-month bonus, similar in amount given to the 1.2 million Federal government civil servants. But why should the staff working in GLCs receive more if they were making losses just like the Federal government’s losses from the budget deficit?
I wish to correct the misleading impression given by some papers that I was not concerned about GLCs making a profit. I was only highlighting the double-standards practice by Prasarana.
For Prasarana to suddenly talk about the importance of profitability in the provision of a public good such as public transport, smacks of double-standards because Prasarana did not think of profitability when paying out higher bonuses despite incurring huge losses. Why talk of profitability now to the Penang state government when the Penang state government wants to give money to increase public transport usage from the current low level of less than 7% in the city and less than 3% statewide for the whole state of Penang?
If Prasarana can not fulfil this statutory duty of providing a public good, let the Penang state government take over buses and public transport. The sad fact of centralisation of powers by the BN Federal government is that the state government can not run public transport even is it is paid by the state government and not paid by the federal government.
LIM GUAN ENG
-Chinese Version-
槟州首席部长林冠英在2013年10月18日在吉隆发表的声明：
国家基建(Prasarana)集团董事经理拿督沙里尔莫达不应该倚着在其推特上的侮辱，把我贬低成“煎蕊卖家”，以为就此能“闪过”解释国家基建公司双重标准的商业模式的责任，即：在赚取盈利的同时，也能够履行公益事业法定责任，以提供可信赖及有效率的公共交通服务。
国家基建(Prasarana)集团董事经理拿督沙里尔莫达不应该倚着在其推特上的侮辱，把我贬低成“煎蕊卖家”，以为就此能“闪过”解释国家基建公司以双重标准经营的商业模式责任，即：在赚取盈利的同时，也能够履行公益事业法定责任，提供可信赖及有效率的公共交通服务。
我个人并不会因为被他标签为“煎蕊卖家”而感到受辱，因为卖煎蕊在槟城是一种很正当的职业。然而，我的支持者认为，国家基建集团董事经理以人身攻击来对付一名首席部长，是很不恰当的行为。
很明显的，沙里尔莫达尽管在管理着一家拥有数十亿令吉资产、并负责经营我国地铁、轻快铁系统、吉隆坡快捷通巴士服务及槟城快捷通巴士服务的政联公司，但他在管理上的想法已经破产。若他在面对公众批评时以人身攻击作回应，证明他是不称职、不专业也不适合担任集团董事经理。
我在10月15日发表了一项声明，质问国家基建公司拒绝接受槟州政府在2011年提出，每年缴付1千万令吉，以在每个工作天的7个小时交通尖峰时段（周一至周五上午6时至9时，及下午4时半至8时半）提供免费巴士服务的理由。
在其推特上，沙里尔在回应我的声明时，将我标签为“煎蕊卖家”。
Shahril Mokhtar @ShahrilMokhtar 15 Oct
“煎蕊每天在尖峰时段的销量是500令吉，但是一个精明的家伙，却建议愿意缴付300令吉，以换取我在尖峰时段，提供免费煎蕊。”
拿督沙里尔莫达说，如果接受槟州政府的1千万令吉常年拨款，只会让该公司现有的财赤问题严重化，但他没说明如果接受这项建议如何导致财务恶化。州政府在2011年与其他单位于吉隆坡的会议上提出这项献议，并以书面方式跟进后，一直都无法真正实践。
如果国家基建公司突然痴迷于利润，那为何在2011年，当该公司面对7亿6300万令吉亏损的当儿，仍然分发介于1个月半至两个月的花红给员工，这比普通公务员所获得的1个月花红还高。2012年国家总稽查司报告指出，国内7家官联机构（GLCs）尽管在2011年面对总额近20亿令吉的亏损，仍然分发花红奖励他们的员工。
国家基建公司分发介于1个月半至两个月的花红给员工，虽然当时公司面对7亿6300万令吉亏损，而Cyberview则在亏损2亿5400万令吉的情况下，依然支付员工2个月半的花红。若有关的官联公司赚钱，这个课题是没有争议的。没有人会针对那些与120万名公务员一样，领取1个月花红的职员。但是为什么这些在官联机构工作的职员，尽管公司面对如联邦政府预算赤字的亏损，却能够享有更高的花红呢？
我希望纠正一些报章指我不关心政联公司赚取盈利的误导性报导，我只是想要突出国家基建公司的双重标准。
在谈到公益事业如公共交通的时候，国家基建公司却突然重视起赚取盈利来，这显然是双重标准，因为国家基建公司在面对庞大亏损当儿，分发更高的花红给予员工时，却没有想过盈利这回事。为何当槟州政府要付费提高目前城市少于7%的公共交通使用率，以及郊外少于3%的公共交通使用率时，国家基建公司才突然谈起盈利来？
如果国家基建公司无法履行提供公益事业的法定任务，就让州政府接管巴士和公共交通的权利。在可悲的中央集权下，公共交通集权在联邦政府，即使州政府而不是联邦政府出资，州政府也无权运作任何的公共交通。
林冠英