FZ says AES just another political rent-seeking tool

FZ says AES just another political rent-seeking tool
Business & Markets 2013
Written by fz.com (contributor to theedgemalaysia.com)
Thursday, 18 July 2013 20:48

THE controversy-riddled Automated Enforcement System (AES) has got into the news again with the revelation in Parliament that the companies contracted to operate the traffic cameras have received RM13.5 million since enforcement began last September.



Acting Transport Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said the two companies – Beta Tegap Sdn Bhd and ATES Sdn Bhd – have been paid about 80% of the summonses collected as of mid-May.



To put the amount into perspective, it is useful to note that the total collection of RM20 million represents just 10% of the summonses issued during this period. More pertinently, only 14 cameras are operational so far out of the 418 that will be installed throughout the country.



The sums involved raise a host of issues that have not been clearly addressed since the system became a topic of public debate last year.



To begin with, it remains a mystery why these companies need to be paid hundreds of millions of ringgit every year for the fully operational system when this revenue should go into the public account. The official line that the privatisation frees the government of the cost of installing and maintaining the system calls for the Transport Ministry to provide the cost-benefit analysis to prove that this argument can withstand scrutiny.



Secondly, allegations that one of the companies is politically linked point to the need for an open investigation into possible conflict of interest situations in the award of the contract.



This issue highlights the unresolved questions that surround the prevailing political culture, where the prospects of political patronage and rent-seeking appear to be inseparable from public office.



The dangers of policy and regulatory capture by vested interests remain ever-present where government procurement is not done in accordance with universally accepted norms of transparency and accountability.



In the current case, the absence of an independent assessment of the merits and demerits of the traffic camera system exposes the public to the risk that the purported benefits of the system may be nullified by an opaque regulatory environment. This can allow decisions to be taken to maximise returns for the operators instead of optimising outcomes for public safety.



It is increasingly looking like the AES is just another rent-seeking tool to enrich selected private entities or individuals at the expense of the public.