by Terence Fernandes
At a recent press conference Tourism Minister Dato Sri Dr Ng Yen Yen threw this challenge: "Do a comparative study on the expo on the cost of the Singapore, Saudi Arabian and UK pavilion."
Well, she’s right. In terms of cost, we spent far less than our southern neighbours who forked out RM90 million for their pavilion; the Saudis (a whopping RM492 million) and the British RM123 million.
But these pavilions embraced the expo’s theme of "Better City Better Life" perfectly capturing the essence of their people and national identity while giving a glimpse of the future. These pavilions have welcomed between five million and 10 million visitors compared to the 4.7 million who walked through our doors.
It is a given that Singapore’s futuristic "music box" pavilion would need deep pockets with its sound-and-light show and musical fountains that capture the essence of the garden city.
The 6,000 sq m Saudi pavilion features a "flying carpet" and the world’s largest Imax screen with 1,600 sq m of pixels. And the UK Pavilion showcases the best of Britain’s past, tourism and industry in a fibre optic shell that makes up the pavilion’s exterior.
Does RM35 million constitute money well spent on an exhibition to showcase leather goods, furniture, massage chairs and 3-in-1 coffee over a 3,000 sq m venue?
The Minister fired a final salvo when quizzed on my allegation that the construction of the pavilion was supervised by government officials instead of civil engineers. She said: "Why don’t you ask them (the contractor) or go visit for yourself. I have got no time (to) cushion-chair problems."
She said it is unfair to talk about the pavilion and its cost after one year. What? There’s now a statute of limitations to question officials over the use of public funds?
We will keep asking until we get satisfactory answers – and this includes the recipient of the ministry’s RM600 million advertising and promotions contract that is being decided.
No comments:
Post a Comment