TAYLOR

Foundation In Business
Integrated Project
BUSINESS SCHOOL
Article 3
Azmin: Water deal stays
Thursday, 23 October 2014
By: JOCELINE TAN, WANI MUTHIAH
SHAH ALAM: Selangor Mentri Besar Azmin Ali wants to see an efficient and quality water supply in the state and has no intention of revoking the agreement between the federal and state governments.
“I am not going to revoke it. I want the exercise to be completed as soon as possible so the people can have enough water in the future,” he said.
However, Azmin said he would continue to press Putrajaya for full disclosure of the water deal.
“How do you expect me and the new administration to defend the decisions taken on the project if we cannot explain to the rakyat the terms and conditions, the tariff rates that will be applied and how it will affect them as consumers?” he said.
He was giving an exclusive interview to The Staryesterday in conjunction with his first month in office.
His stand may come as a surprise to detractors who perceived the deal as a clandestine backdoor agreement between the former mentri besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim and Umno.
Many, including his Pakatan Rakyat colleagues, had expected Azmin to annul the agreement.
Azmin said the state government wanted to end speculation about the water deal and the only way was to open it up to the people.
Azmin, who received original copies of the memorandum of understanding, heads of agreement and the master agreement earlier this month, said the documents were subjected to the Official Secrets Act.
“Because of this, I cannot reveal details of the agreement. This is only a normal agreement, a business transaction between the state and Federal bodies. This is not about national security,’’ he said.
He has also written to Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister Datuk Seri Dr Maximus Ongkili requesting that the Federal Government reveal the details of the deal to the public but has not received any official reply.
However, Dr Ongkili has told the media that the Attorney-General does not allow it and that the concessionaire companies are also against it.
“Are they protecting the companies or the rakyat? The rakyat needs to know the terms and conditions because the tariffs that will be applied affect them,” Azmin said.
On his maiden state budget next month, he said it would focus on development and the people.
Unlike the federal budget, where only about 18% of the RM273bil allocation is for development and the rest for operational expenditure, the Selangor budget would see a 60:40 ratio in that respect.
He said the development spending was to generate economic activities and more income all round.
“Selangor contributes about 25% towards the national GDP (gross domestic product). It is the key to national growth and prosperity.
“We will not neglect our social responsibility to the people but we also need to engage with the business community,” he said.
Reflective Journal
There is a case about water supply in Selangor. Azmin Ali, Selangor Mentari besar who has forcus on this issue and try to fix the problem. Azmin has asked state government and federal to show the whole agreement of water supply to the society. This is because the agree which has done is not properly processing. By the way, this situation has committed the contract law. Under contract law, contractors regularly include the costs of preparing a contractual claim within the claim itself, however, the Contractor is usually not entitled to reimbursement for the costs it has incurred in preparing the initial claim. The reason for there being no entitlement for the recovery of these cost is simply due to the fact that the Contractor is not required under the form of contract to prepare a claim in the sense of a fully detailed document such as might be used as the case in arbitration or court proceedings. When presenting his case to the Contract Administrator or Employer. Normally the Contractor is only required to issue relevant notices make a written application to the Contract Administrator and Employer, backed up by supporting information. Thus the initial submissions by the Contractor to the Contract Administrator and Employer should not to amount to more than an application, setting out the relevant events; stating the applicable clauses under the contract under which he considers himself entitled to recover additional costs or receive an extension to the time for completion together with the relevant matters involved and linking the two together. The Courts and generally Arbitrators would view this as being something that any Contractor which has suffered loss and/or expense should be able do without too much difficulty although it will involve proper research into the occurrences giving rise to the losses. As a result, fees paid to so-called claims specialists or to independent quantity surveyors or other professional advisers are not in principle allowable as a head of claim at the initial stage. Where a claim proceeds to the arbitration or litigation stage, the Contractor is entitled to claim its costs which will include the cost of getting the claim into the right form for arbitration or litigation. The reasonable fees of a claims consultant for work carried out in preparing the Contractor’s case for arbitration together with the costs for expert witnesses and legal counsel may be included in the eventual claim and entitlement. The expenditure of managerial time in remedying an actionable wrong done to a trading company can properly form the subject matter of a claim for ‘special damage’ in an action at common law. Therefore, it is possible that, in principle, there may be a claim for the cost of managerial time within the company spent on preparing a claim. Obviously, there could be no element of double recovery and such a claim should not be covered by any claim for head-office overheads. The defender which is commonly presented against the Contractors recovery of the costs for the employment of a claims consultant is that such employment is unnecessary and, therefore, the costs do not amount to money necessarily expended. In such circumstances it is likely that a Contractor trying to recover such costs would be put to proof that the particular circumstances were such that made the employment of a claims consultant necessary. Where a Contract Administrator or Employer demands the Contractor to submit claims in greater detail at an early stage to determine the Contractors entitlement the Contractor would be prudent to record in writing that he considers that the Contract Administrator or Employers requests exceed the requirements of the Contract and that costs associated with complying with their request will be incurred and shall be subsequently included within the Contractors Claims. Where a Contractor does engage the services of a Claims Consultant at an early stage prior to arbitration or litigation then generally he should consider these costs to be non-recoverable under the contract. In the event that the dispute escalates to arbitration or litigation these costs may well be recoverable in the event that they are reasonable and they are presented in the correct manner.