The cost of building KLIA2

KLIA2 has been finally launched and there's been a lot of buzz ever since. It faced a tonne of trials and setbacks, but on 2 May 2014, the doors of the airport finally opened to the public, offering its services of an aero-bridge, state-of-the-art facilities and shopping areas.
It's definitely a fancy airport with hotels and rail services to get in and out of the terminal. But all that fancy convenience tend to come with an equally fancy price tag. So how much did it cost to build KLIA2 (and can we really afford to have done it)?

KLIA2 Gateway

The mounting costs
There was a lot of back and forth over cost even before KLIA2 was open, as their initial estimation of building KLIA2 was clearly overshot. In July 2007, it was announced that KLIA2 would cost RM1.7 billion. Then it was increased to RM2 billion in March 2009, and then RM2.5 billion in October 2010. The final cost, which has shocked many, turned out to be RM4 billion with more costs to be expected such as the RM100 million to build an Express Rail Link (ERL) between KLIA and KLIA2. The final cost being more than double the estimation caused quite an uproar, with many demanding to know what had happened along the way.
Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed, explained that the higher building cost was due to the changes in the aviation industry. He said KLIA2 was initially designed for 25 million travellers, but was now changed to accommodate 45 million travellers after a forecast by the International Air Transport Association Industry (IATA) showed that there will be a demand for low-cost travel options. This caused the size of the terminal to be expanded, meaning other parts such as the aerobridge and baggage handling system also had to be enlarged.
This has caused popular low-cost airline AirAsia to be hesitant to join KLIA2 as they feared they would be unable to keep their rates low with the new airport. AirAsia believes that they would have to raise their prices and that would affect the market that they have been targeting all this time.
Cracks appearing
RM 4 billion was spent to build a state-of-the-art airport supposedly for budget airlines. When put together that way; the plan can sound disingenuous to some. But even if this was a necessary project for the overall development of the country’s economy and infrastructure – shouldn’t RM4 billion be enough to afford some amount of workmanship guarantee?
It was in the news some days ago that KLIA 2 was showing sinking aircraft parking bays and bumpy taxiways just a few weeks after opening. In February, reports of cracks in the tarmac were patched up and although some news sites were quick to dismiss the cracks as ‘standard’ due to piping, it does give one cause for concern. We’ve spent billions of ringgit – is this the standard amount for building something that cracks and depresses within weeks?

Can it still be low-cost?
Malaysia Airports (MAHB) has given the assurance that as of now the charges at KLIA2 would remain the same as LCCT's, though this came with a qualifier in that the moratorium on cost increases would only be for a year. But beyond that, it would be up to the government to decide whether or not there would be higher charges in terms of airport tax and the likes for those who travel on low cost carriers.

But the high cost of building and operating the new terminal has already forced AirAsia to include an additional RM3 fee passed on to consumers booking tickets with them. So, not only did the new airport cos Malaysia Airport Holdings Berhad (MAHB) a veritable king’s ransom – it’s going to cost budget travellers too.

On their website, the airlines explained what the fee is and why they are forced to charge it. In response to why the fee is charged, the website explains: “klia2 Fee is charged to offset the mandatory klia2 facilities charges imposed by the airport authority.” RM3 is not a princely sum by any means but who’s to say where such additional fees will end? It’s as clear as the Klang River at present if anymore charges will be added and how many other airlines may start including such fees to offset the cost “imposed by the airport authority.”
Though many who have seen the new airport commend its snazzy exterior and facilities – it remains to be seen whether the RM4 billion was truly money well spent.

source:yahoo

What 9 Highly Successful People Wish They Knew Before Starting Their First Jobs

Like countless college students before them, the class of 2014 has little idea what to expect when they enter the working world.

“Whether you know exactly where you’re heading or feel a bit lost,” writes Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg in “Lean In For Graduates,” the latest edition of her popular book, “everyone has this in common: you’re all in for big surprises.” 

College graduates will leave the safe, structured world of higher education and enter a fiercely competitive job market, instantly going from the top of the food chain to the bottom. When they land a job, they enter a strange new world of office politics, power jockeying, and hidden agendas.  

To give  young people a head start, Business Insider polled some of the world’s most successful people to find out what they wish they had known before they graduated.  

A few common themes: Take risks, stay focused, don’t underestimate the power of relationships, and expect the unexpected.  

Successful People

 Arianna Huffington, president and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post Media Group and author of ”Thrive“:

“In college, just before I embarked on a career as a writer, I wish I had known that there would be no trade-off between living a well-rounded life and my ability to do good work.  

“I wish I could go back and tell myself, in my thick Greek accent: ‘Arianna, your performance will actually improve if you can commit to not only working hard, but also unplugging, recharging, and renewing yourself.’ That would have saved me a lot of unnecessary stress, burnout, and exhaustion.” 

Scott Adams, creator of syndicated comic Dilbert and author of “How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big“: 

“I would tell my young self to keep open as many options as possible because the future is wildly unpredictable. The best way to improve your options is to continually learn as much as you can in fields that are complementary to your main interests. It also helps your odds if you stay networked with as many influential people as you can.“

Kay Krill, president and CEO of ANN Inc.:

“The advice I would have given to my college self and any young person entering the workforce today would be to always be authentic and true to yourself and your beliefs. Do not get sidetracked with advice from others that your gut tells you is wrong. By doing this, you will have the clarity of mind to always do the right thing for the business and for yourself.“

Mark Cuban, billionaire entrepreneur and investor:

“I wish that I had known it was just a job and not a mission to make my employer money. I thought I could truly impact the profits of the company — that my ideas were as good on my first day as the most senior executive. I should have been patient and tried to fit in and develop a possible career. 

“But I didn’t. I was a horrible employee. As it turns out, being bored and deciding to leave after nine months wasn’t a bad decision. So I guess the real response is that I’m glad I didn’t know it even though I should have. If I had known that, I might still be there…”

Denise Morrison, president and CEO of Campbell Soup Company:

“If I could give my younger self career advice, it would be this: Don’t wait for doors to open. Open them yourself by being persistent and thinking strategically about your career. Plan your career destination, develop a personal mission statement, and build relationships with sponsors and mentors. 

“And above all, network, because networking is working. Your ability will only take you so far. Your relationships will take you the rest of the way.”

Tim Ferriss, host of “The Tim Ferriss Experiment“ and author of “The 4-Hour Workweek“:

“I wish I’d read Warren Buffett’s early annual letters. There are so many gems that apply broadly to business and life. I’ll paraphrase my favorites:

• Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.
• To be successful, you can get a lot of things wrong, as long as you get a few critical things right. 
• Invest [your time and money] as though you have a single card with only five to 10 hole punches allowed.

Whether you’re playing on Wall Street or Main Street, I think his wisdom is an incredible asset.” 

Teresa Taylor, former COO of Qwest Communications and author of “The Balance Myth“:

“When I was in college, I wish I would have known that you need to be more flexible with work life. You will have situations, bosses, and decisions that you cannot predict, and nothing turns out the way you thought it would. That’s OK! Let things happen, and open yourself to new opportunities.”

Dan Schawbel, managing partner of Millennial Branding and author of ”Promote Yourself“:

“As a college student, I never knew that entrepreneurship was a career solution to employment, nor did I consider an entrepreneurial approach to career management. Like most students, I thought that the ideal career path was to work your way up at a big company and then retire, and boy was I wrong. 

“Through the years, I realized that the only way you can truly get ahead is by being accountable, networking constantly, and putting yourself out there. I realized that you need to think of a career as a collection of experiences along a journey and leverage everything you can to propel yourself forward.”

Kat Cole, president of Cinnabon:

“What I wish I would have known is that everything will change and eventually work out in your career when you follow your purpose and passion. Don’t get too caught up in the ‘plan’ that you have. 

“As a mentor once shared with me, especially when you are young, each career move and choice you make won’t be your last, and you can always course correct, so don’t waste too much time overanalyzing the next few steps. Take a risk, be the best at the job that you can be, help others along the way, and the next right thing will present itself.”

Karpal Singh:Remembering The Tiger Of Jelutong

Social networking sites were abuzz with tributes and messages of condolences and grief for DAP stalwart and prominent lawyer Karpal Singh, who was killed in a road accident Thursday morning.
The 74-year-old died on the spot, as did his personal assistant C. Michael. His son Ramkarpal and the driver sustained light injuries. His Indonesian maid, however, is critically injured.
On Twitter, politicians from both sides of the divide expressed their shock and sadness over the incident.

Prime Minister Najib Razak tweeted that he had received the news  after landing in Turkey.
“I have just landed at Ankara when I heard the news that YB Karpal Singh died in a road accident. My condolences to the family,” he posted.
Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim said: “We’ve lost a colleague; an indefatigable fighter for justice; d legendary Karpal Singh! Our sincere condolences to d family. RIP.”
Karpal had represented the PKR de-facto leader in his sodomy trials.

Human rights advocate and lawyer Ambiga Sreenevasan said the news was “heartbreaking” and praised “towering” Karpal as “a man of principle, courage and a true patriot.”
Some responses however were downright distasteful.
Zulkifli Noordin who is the vice-president of extremist NGO Perkasa, tweeted in Bahasa Malaysia: “As the PAS-led Kelantan state government struggles to implement hudud with Umno’s help, Allah has killed off Karpal, who was the major opponent of its implementation!”
Meanwhile controversial blogger Papagomo also celebrated the Bukit Gelugor MP’s demise, declaring that he was now going to “step over Karpal’s dead body”. He also attached an extremely distressing and graphic photograph of a bleeding Karpal.

Papagomo was referring to a controversial remark made by Karpal in 1990. Karpal had uttered “Islamic state over my dead body”. In 1999, he withdrew the statement and made a public apology.
Zulkifli and Papagomo were however in the minority; most netizens, many of them legal practitioners and members of the press, remember Karpal “the gentleman politician” with fondness.
“R.I.P Karpal singh/C.selvam,” photographer Keow Wee Loong tweeted. “Let’s pray for Ramkarpal.”

Keow Wee Loong Picture : Karpal Singh

 source

The New Yorker: Is America an Oligarchy?

White House : America

 From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy.
“Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts,” Gilens and Page write:

Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

That’s a big claim. In their conclusion, Gilens and Page go even further, asserting that “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover … even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.”
It is hardly surprising that the new study is generating alarmist headlines, such as “STUDY: US IS AN OLIGARCHY, NOT A DEMOCRACY,” from, of all places, the BBC. Gilens and Page do not use the term “oligarchy” in describing their conclusions, which would imply that a small ruling class dominates the political system to the exclusion of all others. They prefer the phrase “economic élite domination,” which is a bit less pejorative.
The evidence that Gilens and Page present needs careful intepretation. For example, the opinion surveys they rely on suggest that, on many issues, people of different incomes share similar opinions. To quote the paper: “Rather often, average citizens and affluent citizens (our proxy for economic elites) want the same things from government.” This does get reflected in policy outcomes. Proposals that are supported up and down the income spectrum have a better chance of being enacted than policies that do not have such support. To that extent, democracy is working.
The issue is what happens when some income groups, particularly the rich, support or oppose certain things, and other groups in society don’t share their views. To tackle this issue, Gilens and Page constructed a multivariate statistical model, which includes three causal variables: the views of Americans in the ninetieth percentile of the income distribution (the rich), the views of Americans in the fiftieth percentile (the middle class), and the opinions of various interest groups, such as business lobbies and trade unions. In setting up their analysis this way, the two political scientists were able to measure the impact that the groups have independent of each other.
This is what the data shows: when the economic élites support a given policy change, it has about a one-in-two chance of being enacted. (The exact estimated probability is forty-five per cent.) When the élites oppose a given measure, its chances of becoming law are less than one in five. (The exact estimate is eighteen per cent.) The fact that both figures are both below fifty per cent reflects a status-quo bias: in the divided American system of government, getting anything at all passed is tricky.
The study suggests that, on many issues, the rich exercise an effective veto. If they are against something, it is unlikely to happen. This is obviously inconsistent with the median-voter theorem—which holds that policy outcomes reflect the preferences of voters who represent the ideological center—but I don’t think that it is a particularly controversial claim. A recent example is the failure to eliminate the “carried interest” deduction, which allows hedge-fund managers and leveraged-buyout tycoons to pay an artificially low tax rate on much of their income. In 2012, there was widespread outrage at the revelation that Mitt Romney, who made his fortune at the leveraged-buyout firm Bain Capital, paid less than fifteen per cent in federal income taxes. But the deduction hasn’t been eliminated.
One of the study’s other interesting findings is that, beyond a certain level, the opinions of the public at large have little impact on the chances a proposal has of being enacted. As I said, policy proposals that have the support of the majority fare better than proposals which are favored only by a minority. But, in the words of Gilens and Page, “The probability of policy change is nearly the same (around 0.3) whether a tiny minority or a large majority of average citizens favor a proposed policy change.”
The paper is a provocative one, and there’s sure to be a lot of debate among political scientists about whether it wholly supports the authors’ claims. One issue is that their survey data is pretty old: it covers the period from 1982 to 2002. (On the other hand, it hardly seems likely that the influence of the affluent has declined in the past decade.) Another issue is that, in a statistical sense, the explanatory power of some of the equations that Gilens and Page use is weak. For example, the three-variable probability model that I referred to above explains less than ten per cent of the variation in the data. (For you statistical wonks, R-squared = 0.074.)
Even in this sort of study, that’s a pretty low figure. Gilens and Page, to their credit, draw attention to it in their discussion, and suggest various reasons for why it’s not a big issue. They also acknowledge another possible objection to their conclusions:

Average citizens are inattentive to politics and ignorant about public policy; why should we worry if their poorly informed preferences do not influence policy making? Perhaps economic elites and interest group leaders enjoy greater policy expertise than the average citizen does. Perhaps they know better which policies will benefit everyone, and perhaps they seek the common good, rather than selfish ends, when deciding which policies to support… But we tend to doubt it.

Me, too. There can be no doubt that economic élites have a disproportionate influence in Washington, or that their views and interests distort policy in ways that don’t necessarily benefit the majority: the politicians all know this, and we know it, too. The only debate is about how far this process has gone, and whether we should refer to it as oligarchy or as something else.

source