KUCHING, Aug 7 ― Sarawak Pakatan Harapan (PH) today blamed the state government for the failure of the Tanjung Manis water project to supply 125 million litres of raw water per day to a halal hub and surrounding areas in the Sarikei Division.
Its chairman Chong Chieng Jen said that the state government had appointed a crony company to build the water project without meeting specifications.
He said that the Auditor-General's Report revealed that the Tanjung Manis water supply project was full of improprieties.
"As a result, despite RM902.7 million having been spent on it, it has totally failed to supply raw water from Sibu to the Tanjung Manis halal hub," Chong, who is also the deputy minister of domestic trade and consumers affairs, said.
As revealed by the A-G’s Report, Chong said the water supply project was awarded to the contractor via direct negotiation without going through any open tender process.
He said that the project was awarded to a company with strong political links in Sarawak, but claimed it was done without transparency or proper planning. He said Sarawakians ended up footing the bill when the project failed.
"At the end, not only was there costs overrun and delay, but it failed to supply water from Sibu to the Tanjung Manis hahal hub as intended," he said.
Chong called on the state government to discard its old way of cronyism and adopt the new practices of good governance of the new federal government, predicting that the ruling Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) would fall in the 2021 state election if the state government continued with the practice of direct negotiations.
According to the A-G’s Report, the Tanjung Manis water project commenced construction on November 11, 2013, but failed to meet the completion date on November 10, 2015.
The project was meant to transfer 125 million litres of raw water per day from Sungai Maaw in Sibu by using River Bank Filtration (RBF) system through pumping stations to Tanjung Manis hahal hub.
The A-G’s Report revealed that the project failed to meet its objective because the contractor did not fulfill the responsibility to build the project in accordance with the specification in the contract.
