Gesaan bagi ketelusan dalam perjanjian konsesi lebuh raya/Uphold transparency in highway concession agreements

[ENGLISH VERSION BELOW] Sudah hampir 40 tahun sejak Malaysia mula memperkenalkan jalan bertol sebagai sebahagian daripada usaha penswastaan nasionalnya.

Persatuan Pengguna Pulau Pinang (CAP) kini menggesa kerajaan untuk mendedahkan perjanjian konsesi lebuh raya sebagai langkah ke arah ketelusan yang lebih besar dalam membuat keputusan.

Peralihan ke arah lebuh raya bertol didorong terutamanya oleh pertimbangan praktikal dan fiskal. Pada masa itu, kerajaan menghadapi kekangan kewangan yang ketara dan kekurangan sumber untuk membina rangkaian lebuh raya yang meluas yang diperlukan untuk menyokong pertumbuhan ekonomi.

Dengan memperkenalkan konsesi tol, pembangunan lebuh raya boleh dipercepatkan tanpa memberi tekanan tambahan pada belanjawan persekutuan.

Sama juga pentingnya ialah keinginan untuk memanfaatkan modal sektor swasta, kepakaran teknikal dan kecekapan operasi.

Perjanjian konsesi yang mengawal lebuh raya bertol biasanya bersifat jangka panjang. Ia selalunya menjangkau antara 30 dan 50 tahun, atau berterusan sehingga syarikat konsesi telah mendapatkan semula pelaburannya bersama-sama dengan kadar pulangan yang dipersetujui.

Ciri utama kontrak ini ialah mekanisme kadar tol, yang menetapkan bila dan bagaimana cara tol boleh disemak. Pelarasan sering dikaitkan dengan faktor seperti inflasi atau jumlah lalu lintas, walaupun sebarang peningkatan mungkin masih tertakluk kepada persetujuan kerajaan.

Beberapa perjanjian juga termasuk peruntukan yang berkaitan dengan jaminan jumlah lalu lintas. Ini bertujuan untuk melindungi pelabur dengan memberikan pampasan jika lalu lintas sebenar jatuh di bawah ambang yang dipersetujui, dengan itu mengurangkan risiko kewangan yang dikaitkan dengan tahap penggunaan yang tidak menentu.

Di samping itu, kontrak biasanya menyediakan sokongan atau pampasan kerajaan dalam keadaan tertentu. Apabila keputusan dasar kerajaan, seperti membekukan kadar tol atas sebab politik atau sosial, mengurangkan hasil jangkaan pemegang konsesi, perjanjian itu mungkin memerlukan kerajaan membayar pampasan bagi kerugian itu.

Perjanjian itu juga menyatakan syarat-syarat di mana konsesi boleh ditamatkan lebih awal. Klausa ini mentakrifkan keadaan kemungkiran, hak kedua-dua pihak dan kaedah untuk mengira pampasan atau jumlah pembelian balik sekiranya kerajaan memilih untuk menamatkan konsesi sebelum tamat tempoh asalnya.

Walaupun kesan awamnya yang jelas, beberapa perjanjian konsesi kekal dirahsiakan di bawah Akta Rahsia Rasmi (OSA). Akibatnya, tiada bahagian daripada perjanjian itu boleh didedahkan kepada umum tanpa persetujuan kedua-dua kerajaan dan pemegang konsesi.

Walaupun kerahsiaan ini ditarik balik, kebanyakan perjanjian masih mengandungi klausa tidak mendedahkan yang ketat berdasarkan kerahsiaan komersial, yang terus menghalang penerbitan meluas tanpa kebenaran pemegang konsesi.

Di samping itu, perjanjian konsesi sendiri biasanya termasuk peruntukan kerahsiaan, bermakna walaupun kerajaan cenderung ke arah pendedahan, ia mungkin masih memerlukan persetujuan pihak swasta untuk mengelakkan pelanggaran kewajipan kontrak.

Dari segi praktikal, kerahsiaan di bawah OSA tidak semestinya bermakna orang ramai tidak boleh melihat kontrak ini. Sebaliknya, ini bermakna tanpa kelulusan yang jelas daripada kerajaan dan pemegang konsesi, atau keputusan rasmi untuk mendedahkan semula dokumen, teks penuh tidak boleh diterbitkan secara bebas atau diedarkan secara meluas.

Terdapat percubaan berulang kali untuk mendorong ketelusan yang lebih besar. Sekitar 2008, usaha telah dibuat untuk mendedahkan semula perjanjian konsesi tol supaya ia boleh diperiksa oleh orang ramai, walaupun dalam keadaan terkawal.

Baru-baru ini, penggubal undang-undang, termasuk ahli parlimen, menggesa supaya pendedahan sepenuhnya perjanjian seperti konsesi PJD Link supaya terma dan nilai untuk wang mereka dapat diperiksa oleh Parlimen dan orang ramai.

Gesaan ini setakat ini telah ditentang atas alasan OSA dan kerahsiaan kontrak, walaupun penyokong ketelusan terus berhujah bahawa konsesi tol ialah kontrak awam utama yang berhak mendapat pendedahan penuh dan terbuka melangkaui pemeriksaan fizikal terhad.

CAP berpendapat bahawa perjanjian konsesi sebegini sepatutnya didedahkan kepada umum, kerana rakyat berhak mengetahui apa yang terkandung di dalamnya.

Ia juga mempersoalkan logik memberi pampasan kepada syarikat konsesi apabila lalu lintas sebenar berada di bawah ambang yang dipersetujui, dengan menyatakan bahawa risiko adalah unsur yang wujud dalam mana-mana usaha niaga, terutamanya apabila asas kontrak untuk pampasan itu ditahan daripada penelitian awam.

Selain menggesa pendedahan perjanjian konsesi lebuh raya, CAP juga menggesa kerajaan mengambil alih kawalan lebuh raya sebaik sahaja perjanjian konsesi berakhir.

Dalam banyak bidang kuasa, kontrak perkongsian awam-swasta diterbitkan, dengan hanya bahagian sensitif komersial yang ditakrifkan secara sempit disunting. Ketelusan sedemikian membolehkan Parlimen, masyarakat sivil dan pakar bebas menilai sama ada risiko diperuntukkan dengan sewajarnya dan sama ada orang ramai menerima nilai untuk wang.

Sekiranya rakyat dijangka menanggung akibat fiskal daripada perjanjian-perjanjian ini, adalah munasabah bahawa mereka sepatutnya dapat melihat syarat-syarat yang mewujudkan kewajipan itu. – CAP

English version

Call for transparency in Malaysia’s highway concession agreements

It has been almost 40 years since Malaysia first introduced tolled roads as part of its national privatisation drive, and the Consumers’ Association of Penang (CAP) is now calling on the government to declassify highway concession agreements as a step towards greater transparency in decision making.

The shift towards tolled highways was driven primarily by practical and fiscal considerations. At the time, the government faced significant financial constraints and lacked the resources to build the extensive highway network required to support economic growth.

By introducing toll concessions, highway development could be accelerated without placing additional strain on the federal budget.

Equally important was the desire to tap into private sector capital, technical expertise and operational efficiency.

The concession agreements governing tolled highways are typically long term in nature. They often span between 30 and 50 years, or continue until the concessionaire has recovered its investment together with an agreed rate of return.

A central feature of these contracts is the toll rate mechanism, which sets out when and how tolls may be reviewed. Adjustments are often linked to factors such as inflation or traffic volumes, although any increase may still be subject to government consent.

Some agreements also include provisions relating to traffic volume guarantees. These are intended to protect investors by providing compensation if actual traffic falls below agreed thresholds, thereby reducing the financial risk associated with uncertain usage levels.

In addition, the contracts commonly provide for government support or compensation in specific circumstances. Where government policy decisions, such as freezing toll rates for political or social reasons, reduce the concessionaire’s expected revenue, the agreement may require the government to compensate for those losses.

The agreements also spell out the conditions under which a concession may be terminated early. These clauses define events of default, the rights of both parties and the method for calculating compensation or buy-out amounts should the government choose to end the concession before its natural expiry.

Despite their clear public impact, some concession agreements remain classified under the Official Secrets Act (OSA). As a result, no part of such an agreement may be disclosed to the public without the consent of both the government and the concessionaire.

Even where classification has been lifted, most agreements still contain strict non-disclosure clauses based on commercial confidentiality, which continue to prevent their wide publication without the consent of the concessionaires.

In addition, concession agreements themselves usually include confidentiality provisions, meaning that even if the government is inclined towards disclosure, it may still require the consent of the private party to avoid breaching contractual obligations.

In practical terms, classification under the OSA does not necessarily mean that the public can never see these contracts. Rather, it means that without explicit approval from the government and the concessionaire, or a formal decision to reclassify the document, the full text cannot be freely published or widely distributed.

There have been repeated attempts to push for greater transparency. Around 2008, efforts were made to reclassify toll concession agreements so that they could be inspected by the public, albeit under controlled conditions.

More recently, lawmakers, including MPs, have called for the full declassification of agreements such as the PJD Link concession so that their terms and value for money can be examined by Parliament and the public.

These calls have so far been resisted on the grounds of the OSA and contractual confidentiality, even as transparency advocates continue to argue that toll concessions are major public contracts that deserve full and open disclosure beyond limited physical inspection.

CAP maintains that such concession agreements should be made public, as the public are entitled to know what is embodied in them.

It also questions the logic of compensating concessionaires when actual traffic falls below agreed thresholds, noting that risk is an inherent element of any business venture, particularly when the contractual basis for such compensation is withheld from public scrutiny.

Beyond calling for the declassification of highway concession agreements, CAP also urges the government to take over control of highway once a concession agreement comes to an end.

In many jurisdictions, public-private partnership contracts are published, with only narrowly defined commercially sensitive sections redacted. Such transparency allows Parliament, civil society and independent experts to assess whether risks are appropriately allocated and whether the public is receiving value for money.

If ordinary people are expected to bear the fiscal consequences of these agreements, it is reasonable that they should be able to see the terms that created those obligations. – CAP

Mohideen Abdul Kader is the president of the Consumers’ Association of Penang (CAP).

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: