No to PORR but yes for PIL 1?

A controversy is raging on why the DAP was against PORR in 2002 but is for PIL 1 (a variation of PORR). I was in Penang in 2002 when PORR was debated and opposed by NGOs and opposition parties like DAP. I relive this debate now in the form of PIL 1 (Pan Island Link).
I am a resident of Tanjong Bungah. Like millions of Malaysians, I voted for Pakatan Harapan (PH) and support a government that promises change and hope. But I am saddened to see that even in its early days, some leaders have begun to ignore the voices of the rakyat.

On Aug 10, Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow said he opposed PORR because it was proposed as a toll road and that the NGOs were misleading the public. So, I decided to google to see what are the facts.
I found this in the DAP website, https://www.dapmalaysia.org/all-archive/English/2002/may02/bul/bul1620.htm dap.
Chow in a speech on May 29, 2002, said he opposed PORR for several reasons. The first he said was, "if the findings of the Halcrow Report is true, Dr Koh would be irresponsible in pushing the PORR through as this will not be a long-term solution to the traffic congestion on the island."
Halcrow incidentally was also the consultant for the Penang Transport Master Plan under this government. Other reasons given were DAP was against collecting toll and that open tender system was not practised … and (also) Penangites are oblivious of the impact of the PORR on Penang's future and the quality of life on this beautiful island because of the lack of information."
He ended by calling for a review of the PORR project and not to "bulldoze through the PORR project despite fierce opposition from the people that the project is unnecessary and being carried out under a shroud of secrecy ….".
On June 15, 2002, he reiterated the same points he raised in Parliament as a motion against PORR. See https://dapmalaysia.org/all-archive/English/2002/jun02/bul/bul1655.htm
Hence it is clear that the issues of toll and open tender were not the only reasons Chow was against the PORR. Otherwise he would have said he supported PORR as long as tolls were not collected and open tender system was practised. But no, he was against PORR because it does not solve traffic congestion.
I decided to look further and discovered a report in Malaysiakini dated May 28, 2002 that cited Lim Kit Siang who said the same thing. He could not have been clearer on the primary reason why DAP rejected PORR.
Lim said "the nightmare of the Penang traffic congestion is likely to be back to square one, not in eight years but probably less than five years, after the completion of PORR… What Penang needs is an efficient public transport system based on sustainable transport policy, as PORR is not a medium-term let alone long-term solution to the traffic congestion nightmare on the island."
He continued, "For medium and long-term improvements, the Halcrow report recognised that a sensible option in promoting continued and sustained growth for Penang would be for the car adapting to the city as in the case of Singapore, rather than the city adapting to the car in the case of Bangkok," he added.
Why is the present DAP leadership is going against its own stand?
A poster is making the rounds to justify the DAP's support for PIL 1. It says, PIL 1 is toll-free and open tender would be practised, it would relieve traffic for more than 20 years, and complement other forms of public transport in Penang. On the other hand PORR does not do all the above.
My questions are:
» Did the present Halcrow report of the Penang state government claim PIL 1 will relieve traffic for more than 20 years? In the Halcrow report, the PIL project was not even mentioned. So who made this unsubstantiated claim? The PIL project was inserted by SRS Consortium. The members of the SRS consortium are not traffic experts; they are infrastructure contractors and developers.
» Has the Penang state government practised genuine open tender or only request for proposal (RFP). It has already been pointed out by Professor Ahmad Hilmy of USM and Dr Lim Mah Hui that RFP is NOT open tender. It is open bidding for different proposals and susceptible to rigging.
» Does the PIL 1 really complement other public transport? In Phase 1 of the SRS Penang Transport Master Plan, RM17 billion will be spent to build PIL 1 and an LRT. No other funds are allocated to implement other components of public transport. And it is unlikely other funds are available. So how can PIL1 complement other public transport components?
» The Penang state government should not boast that PIL 1 is going to be toll-free because it is a financially and ecologically irresponsible policy and undermines its own stated objective to increase public modal share of transport. Is the Penang state government also going to make the existing two bridges and ferry toll free?
Zulfikar Ali Abdul Aziz
Penang