Melayu Celup Menghambakan Melayu Jati

Ani: TNB got a raw deal. WHEN the Government decided to approve the request from Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) to raise electricity tariffs, the plight of the national utility took centre-stage. Naturally, the knee-jerk reaction among consumers was not favourable. The 12% rise in tariffs appears to have re-ignited the debate on how good the going is for independent power producers (IPPs) at the cost of the national utility’s cashflow. The imbalance between the generation side of the business and that of transmission and distribution has put a strain on TNB. To understand the privatisation of the power generation sector, one needs to take a look back in history to understand that the country’s IPPs came about as a result of the Government’s effort to address the issue of stable power supply after the landmark 1992 blackout. Lending a historical perspective to the issue of IPPs is former TNB executive chairman Tan Sri Ani Arope, who headed the national utility from 1990 to 1996. It was during his tenure that the first generation IPPs were created. StarBiz deputy news editor JAGDEV SINGH SIDHU has the story.

STARBIZ: What happened after the first major blackout in 1992?

Ani: TNB had plans in place to pump out more energy by building plants in Pasir Gudang and Paka. Financing was no problem and our credit standing was very high. We had the land acquired and were ready to move in and plant up.

But we were told by the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) that it had its own plans. We cautioned EPU that if those plants, which would take two years to complete, were not built, Malaysia would get another major blackout. When you have a place with 250 engineers, it does not make sense to say (the blackout) is because of poor planning. But the EPU said it had its own plans and we were told to surrender the land.

Then it surfaced that it wanted to privatise the power plants. I am not anti-IPPs per se. It is good to have other players but it has to be done fairly. It has to be fair to the consumers, not just TNB, which is a conduit. TNB, because of the electricity hike, has been treated as the whipping boy. The focus should be on the consumers.

When the generous terms were given to the IPPs, all my other peers around the world asked what was happening. They said they would like to have a share in the IPPs. They said (the contracts to IPPs) were “too darn generous.” (The terms) were grossly one sided.

How was the Malaysian model of IPPs created?

Ask our previous Prime Minister.

How was the process of negotiations with IPPs conducted?

There was no negotiation. Absolutely none. Instead of talking directly with the IPPs, TNB was sitting down with the EPU. And we were harassed, humiliated and talked down every time we went there. After that, my team was disappointed. The EPU just gave us the terms and asked us to agree. I said no way I would.

What about the pricing and terms of the contracts?

It was all fixed up. (They said) this is the price, this is the capacity charge and this is the number of years. They said you just take it and I refused to sign the contracts. And then, I was put out to pasture.

Why did you disagree with the terms?

It was grossly unfair. At 16 sen per unit (kWh) and with the take or pay situation, actually it was 23 sen per unit. With 23 sen, plus transmission and distribution costs, TNB would have had to charge the consumer no less than 30 sen per unit. If mixed with TNB’s cost, the cost would come down but that was at our expense because we were producing electricity at 8 sen a unit. We can deliver electricity at 17 sen per unit.

And then there is a capacity charge. Nobody produces excess electricity like Malaysia and it goes to waste because there are no batteries to store that power. TNB only needs a reserve of 15% to 20%.

TNB was producing electricity at 8 sen a unit. What should have been the right price for IPPs to sell to TNB?

Twelve sen. They could not beat our price as we had already amortised our assets. But for the new guys or even ourselves to come in then and (having) to meet interest charges and to make a small profit, it would cost 12 sen a unit.

This was what we told one IPP. The IPP agreed to it but the EPU said that unless the IPP raised its price, the contract would not be given to the IPP. So he got it for 14 sen per unit.

And then, there is the cost pass-through. If the price of fuel went up, the extra cost is passed through to us. And in other words, it is passed on to the consumer.

Under what terms would you have agreed to the IPPs being set up?

Have an independent buyer for the electricity and in one way, let TNB come in and bid for the plants. Get other people to come in. Get a commission to see (to) our needs and TNB can be one of the producers.

It is argued that the IPPs’ contracts are too lucrative but there are IPPs in other countries in Africa or Asia that have better terms.

There are IPPs charging 50 to 60 US cents per unit but they use diesel. Take our own situation and compare oranges with oranges. Then it is fair. Do whatever is fair.

How were you affected by the process of awarding the IPP contracts?

I felt sick. It was morally wrong and not fair. If it is legal and not fair, I will not do it. If it is fair and illegal, I still won’t do it. It has to be legal and fair.

We work for the consumers, workers and shareholders. TNB is morally obligated to these three, but the consumers come first, otherwise we won’t be around. It is then the workers and the shareholders.

When I said that, they said ‘Dia ingat bapak dia-punya’ (He thinks this is his father’s company). This job is an amanah (trust). You are entrusted with this responsibility and you carry it out to the best of your ability. I do not want somebody to come and urinate on my grave. In the Malay culture, that is about the worst insult they can do to a man.

Do you think you did the right thing by not signing the agreements?

Absolutely.

How should a contract with the IPPs work?

In Australia, they call the IPPs and ask “what is your price”. They will pay the IPP that offers the best price. What they could have done is to throw the net wider and ask everybody (if they) are good, it would be awarded to them. But in our case, the contracts were ready-made and we were asked to sign.

What is your view on the impending renegotiation with the IPPs?

It has to be legal and fair. If we were to negotiate unfairly and illegally, the whole world will be looking at us and they will say “don’t sign anything with Malaysia because if things go against the country, the Government will void the agreement”.

We have to look at this very carefully.

Syarikat pengeluar tenaga bebas (IPP) lahir pada 1996 apabila berlakunya gangguan bekalan elektrik di seluruh negara ketika itu. Ada pihak mendakwa gangguan itu sengaja dilakukan bagi mengizinkan kewujudan IPP.
Pengerusi Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) ketika itu, Tan Sri Ani Arope menjadi mangsa apabila dihentam secara terbuka oleh Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad sehingga akhirnya beliau terpaksa meletakkan jawatan.

TNB juga menjadi mangsa apabila dipaksa membeli tenaga daripada IPP dengan harga mahal.

Petronas pula diarah menjual gas pada kadar lebih murah daripada harga pasaran kepada IPP biar pun mereka membeli pada harga yang lebih tinggi daripada Indonesia dan kawasan JDA Malaysia-Thailand.
Demikian pendedahan yang dibuat oleh bekas akauntan Petronas, Rafizi Ramli dan dilaporkan olehHarakahdaily hari ini.

Rafizi yang juga pengarah strategi PKR turut mendakwa syarikat petroleum negara itu terpaksa membeli setong minyak dengan harga RM40 dan dijual pula kepada IPP dengan harga RM10.

Katanya, TNB juga dipaksa membeli kuasa dibekalkan penjana bebas milik kroni Dr Mahathir dengan harga mahal.

“Berdasar kepada perjanjian yang berat sebelah tersebut menyebabkan kerajaan terpaksa menanggung subsidi sehingga RM21 bilion untuk IPP milik bukan Melayu yang rapat dengan Dr Mahathir.

Menjaga kroni


“IPP diwujudkan sebagai usaha menjaga kroni pemimpin Umno dengan berselindung di sebalik gangguan bekalan elektrik pada 1996,” katanya pada ceramah isu semasa di Kampung Kubur Kuda dekat Kota Bharu malam semalam.


Hadir sama pada ceramah itu bekas Ketua Pemuda Umno Ketereh, Sobri Safii, pegawai penerangan Urusetia Penerangan Kerajaan Negeri, Abdul Hamid Derani, Ketua Cabang PKR Kota Bharu, Abdul Halim Harun dan Ketua Pemuda PAS kawasan, Wan Azimin Wan Adnan.


Rafizi berkata mengikut perancangan awal kerajaan BN, harga petrol RON95 akan dinaik kepada RM2.25 sen seliter menjelang hujung tahun hadapan.


Bagaimanapun katanya kerajaan tidak berani melakukan sekarang kerana dibantah orang ramai.


Namun sepanjang 18 bulan lalu kerajaan menaikkan harga gula lebih 58 peratus dan petrol RON97 sekarang melonjak kepada RM2.90 seliter.


“Harga petrol boleh dikurangkan sehingga 60 sen seliter apabila rakyat memberi mandat kepada Pakatan memerintah Putrajaya nanti.


“Ia boleh dilakukan dengan menghapuskan subsidi untuk IPP di mana sekarang sebanyak RM21 bilion diperuntuk kerajaan setiap tahun,” katanya.


Abdul Hamid pula berkata sepatutnya Pemuda Umno meminta kerajaan pusat menyediakan kertas putih mengenai banyak berlaku penyelewengan dalam Lembaga Kemajuan Pertanian Kemubu (Kada).

Bertahan semusim saja


Katanya, projek pemasangan longkang fiber yang dibuat Kada suatu ketika dahulu bagi menyalur air ke sawah hanya mampu bertahan semusim tanaman padi sahaja.


“Banyak duit dibazirkan untuk projek tersebut. Begitu juga kewujudan Dataran Kada tidak banyak memberi manfaat kepada petani,” ujarnya.


Sobri pula berkata, kerajaan negeri berjaya memintas rancangan Ketua Umno Ketereh, Tan Sri Annuar Musa bagi memujuk perdana menteri untuk mendapatkan peruntukan membina stadium di Kelantan.


Katanya, projek stadium tersebut dimohon dengan harapan BN dapat merampas semula Kelantan pada pilihan raya umum akan datang.


“Tiba-tiba projek yang sedang dilobi pemimpin Umno sudah diumumkan lebih awal kerajaan negeri,” katanya.

Pakar perlembagaan negara Profesor Abdul Aziz Bari hari menolak dakwaan kononnya perlembagaan persekutuan memperuntukkan hanya orang Melayu dan Bumiputera mempunyai hak eksklusif bagi mendapatkan biasiswa.


Katanya, pihak yang membuat dakwaan itu hanya berdasarkan peruntukan 'keistimewaan Melayu' sebenarnya telah menyalah tafsirkan undang-undang.


"Mungkin peruntukan yang dimaksudkan oleh Gaps (Gagasan Anti-Penyelewengan Selangor) adalah Perkara 153 yang menyentuh kedudukan istimewa Melayu; sesuatu lanjutan dari peruntukan dalam Perjanjian Persekutuan Malaya 1948,” kata Abdul Aziz.


Beliau yang juga seorang pensyarah undang-undang berkata perkara itu “hanya menyebut kedudukan istimewa” tanpa menghuraikannya dan tidak secara khusus menyebut mengenai hak keistimewaan itu.


Gaps hari ini meminta semua pihak supaya tidak menjadikan kemelut pemberian biasiswa Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam sebagai isu perkauman. Ini kerana menurut kumpulan pendesak yang condong kepada Umno itu, perlembagaan negara menyatakan dengan jelas bahawa hanya orang Melayu dan Bumiputera mempunyai hak untuk menerima biasiswa kerajaan.


Bagaimanapun Abdul Aziz menyangkal hujah yang dibuat itu.


"(Dalam) Perkara 153, perlembagaan tidak menyebut 'hak' seumpama itu.


"Ia hanya menyebut 'kedudukan istimewa' tanpa menghuraikannya. Dalam fasal (1) Perkara 152 malah disebut 'hak' atau kepentingan kaum-kaum yang lain,” katanya lagi.

Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang Lim Guan Eng membidas Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam kerana berulang-kali gagal membekalkan biasiswa kepada pelajar yang berkelayakan.


Lim berkata JPA ketika mengagihkan biasiswa baru-baru gagal membezakan di antara pelajar cemerlang yang memperolehi tempat teratas dengan mereka yang mendapat keputusan kedua tertinggi.


Katanya, tindakan mesti diambil terhadap "Napolean Kecil” yang bertanggungjawab melakukan kesilapan itu kerana tindakan mereka menjejaskan masa depan pelajar yang terbabit.


"Sama ada lantik orang baru menjalankan kerja itu atau dapatkan TPM baru (Timbalan Perdana Menteri yang juga Menteri Pelajaran),” kata Lim pada sidang akhbar selepas menghadiri mesyuarat pengarah InvestPenang.


"Apa yang berlaku? Ini perkara mudah tetapi kesilapan seperti ini menimbulkan kepayahan, kegusaran dan kemarahan rakyat,” bidasnya.


Setiausaha agung DAP juga mempersoalkan kemampuan kerajaan membekalkan perkhidmatan awam berkelas pertama sedangkan mereka kerap membuat kesilapan seumpama itu.


Bagi membekalkan perkhidmatan kelas pertama, kata Lim, kerajaan mesti memastikan terdapat sistem yang betul, etika baik, khususnya dalam pemberian biasiswa serta semangat pasukan yang baik.


Namun, katanya bukan semua kakitangan awam adalah bermasalah tetapi tindakan segelintir mereka ini merosakkan nama baik rakan mereka yang lain.