HONOURING OUR AIRMEN : THE CLOSURE OF SUNGAI BESI AIRBASE AND ITS FUTURE

Photos Source : Bro Rady, Awani, Cindai Kuning, TUDM and random searches from the Internet

In 2018, many RMAF veterans feel a profound sense of loss following the relocation of Sungai Besi Airbase (ICAO WKMF) to Sendayan especially witnessing and listening to the historical Armed Forces Reveille/Retreat Ceremony (ATM Paluan Berundur). The old quarters, once well-maintained, was said to have been left to overgrow, resulting in underutilized infrastructure and impacting the nearby RMAF mosque.

For retirees, bidding farewell to this historic base evokes nostalgia, pride, and a subtle disappointment at the changes brought by redevelopment. Few may know that Sungai Besi Airbase (nearly a century old) was also known as Simpang Airport, the first airport in Malaysia, long before Subang.

By now, many ex-RMAF personnel likely recognize PMX’s decisive actions in reclaiming the former Sungai Besi Airbase, gazetting portions as Malay Reserve land and allocating areas for veterans’ housing, demonstrating a clear commitment to the welfare of retired armed forces members.

This does not constitute a military reactivation, as PU Sendayan has more than sufficient capacity/facilities, including provisions for the RMAF Museum.

Conspiracy theories never grow old. I couldn’t help but chuckle at the so-called ‘intelligence reports’ claiming secret, high-tech weapons are being developed or stored at the former Sungai Besi Airbase. I thought to myself, “What is this? Area 51?”

On the other hand, The Ministry of Defence oversees base decommissioning under strict operational protocols, including asset inventories, appointed custodians, legal oversight, and formal site handovers. These measures ensure full accountability and prevent unauthorised disclosures, in line with the Official Secrets Act (OSA). In accordance with standard military protocol, any operational concerns or intelligence are handled through established command channels, not speculation.

This approach reassures the public without revealing operational specifics, curbs rumours, and strengthens confidence in institutional command and control structures.

Redevelopment of Bandar Malaysia

The government plans to redevelop Bandar Malaysia, led by KLCC Holdings Berhad, the property arm of Petronas and the Petronas Twin Towers.

Rule of Law, Illegal Land Use, and the Cost of Delayed Enforcement

Whenever authorities dismantle illegal structures or clear unlawful land use, public backlash often follows, frequently framed as racial discrimination or inhumane treatment. What is less discussed is that many of these structures or agricultural activities were knowingly established on land without legal rights, sometimes with the expectation that compensation would be paid when enforcement eventually occurs.

There are genuine cases where individuals or businesses hold lawful ownership or valid approvals, and the courts have rightly ruled in their favour. However, there are also numerous cases involving encroachment, unauthorised plantations, or land claims made without documentation. Under the National Land Code 1965 (Act 56), occupation or use of land without title or consent of the State Authority is an offence, regardless of how long the land has been occupied.

When enforcement takes place often pursuant to a court order, blame is frequently directed at MPs, ADUNs, or the government of the day. In reality, responsibility is rarely one-sided. Authorities may have delayed enforcement or failed in oversight, affected parties may have taken calculated risks, and in some cases corruption or abuse of power may be involved, which must be addressed under the MACC Act 2009 (Act 694).

What is important to understand is that court decisions are made based on evidence, documentation, and statutory law not sentiment. Reframing every enforcement action as “injustice” after a ruling is issued weakens respect for the rule of law.

I do not take sides based on emotion. I assess facts, legal frameworks, and court findings. Some may disagree, but a society governed by laws must be willing to accept outcomes grounded in legality even when they are uncomfortable.

The real discussion should focus on early governance, transparent enforcement, accountability on all sides, and protecting genuine rights without normalising illegality or politicising lawful action.

GERIK TRAGEDY : A SYSTEMIC ROAD SAFETY REVIEW IS REQUIRED : WITH NO FAULT ATTRIBUTION

Reading Malaysiakini ’s reporting on the Gerik tragedy compelled me to reflect on broader systemic issues that Malaysia must confront.

If we start faulting human error (although it may be correct), we are going back to square one seeing only the person but not the system.

In engineering and regulatory practice, fatal crashes are analysed using the Safe System Approach recognising that humans make mistakes, but infrastructure, vehicles, and governance systems must prevent those mistakes from becoming fatal.

International frameworks such as Austroads Road Safety Audit Guidelines, PIARC Road Safety Manuals, iRAP Star Ratings, AASHTO Green Book, and ISO 39001 Road Traffic Safety Management Systems require:

1) Independent road safety audits at design, construction, and operational stages

2) Continuous asset condition and performance monitoring (pavement, barriers, signage, visibility, and geometry)

3) Enforcement of heavy vehicle standards, load control, and fatigue management

4) Transparent incident reporting with regulatory accountability and enforceable corrective actions

Road geometry must also be scrutinised. Curve radius, superelevation (banking), gradient, and sight distance determine whether a road is inherently forgiving or unforgiving.

Standards such as JKR Arahan Teknik (Jalan) 8/86, Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 3, and AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets specify minimum curve radii and superelevation for given design speeds.

A curve designed for 60 km/h but routinely driven at 90 km/h is not merely a driver failure, it is a systemic design and governance failure under Safe System principles.

If investigations stop at driver behaviour, we ignore systemic engineering, contractual, and regulatory failures. Mature jurisdictions distribute responsibility across designers, contractors, concessionaires, operators, regulators, and enforcement agencies.

Malaysia must institutionalise mandatory safety audits, independent oversight, public disclosure of high-risk road segments, and enforceable remedial actions, not ad-hoc post-mortems after tragedies occur.

Road safety is a system engineering problem. Governance failure is often the root cause.

hashtag#SafeSystem hashtag#RoadSafetyAudit hashtag#iRAP hashtag#ISO39001 hashtag#Austroads hashtag#AASHTO hashtag#JKR hashtag#InfrastructureGovernance hashtag#TransportPolicy hashtag#Malaysia

The Untold Story: A Legacy of Muhibbah

This faded photograph, likely captured in the late 1950s, features "Abang" Jack and "Abang" Tony. Though they were from Kuala Lumpur, they weren't just friends, they were family.

While Jack was a well-known figure in the bustling streets of Bukit Bintang, Tony was the one who shared a bond with my eldest brother so deep it felt like kinship. That warmth extended to my parents and eventually to me. To Tony, I wasn't just a family friend, I was a younger brother.

Years later, when I moved to KL to start my 2nd job, Tony didn't just stay in touch, he stepped up. He supported me financially when I was finding my footing, proving that his loyalty wasn't bound by time or distance. Our last meeting in 1996 at the Wisma Selangor Dredging Executive Club remains etched in my mind. We sat there with a Chinese Indonesian entrepreneur who was captivated by my ISO newspaper columns, a testament to how our lives had evolved since that sunny afternoon on the balcony.

Both have since passed away, with Tony leaving us in the mid-2000s. Meeting his son shortly after felt like a closing of a circle a shared recognition of a bond that defined an era. I miss them both dearly. Those were the days when the air felt lighter, and the word "race" never carried the weight of a wall.

NCR REPORT - PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, WATERPROOFING, DRAINAGE

 

NON-CONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR)

Project: Infrastructure Development Project (Roadway.... Utility Corridor.... Ancillary Facilities.....), Trades: Civil, M&E, and Drainage Works, NCR No.: NCR-INFRA-PLB-ELEC-DRN-......... Date:.......... Location: [Chainage...../Lot...../Structure Reference] Issued By: QA/QC Engineer/Consultant, Contractor: [................]

I would like to thank the Client, Consultants (MEP and C&S) including my son Nik Muhammad Hussainy Nik Zafri , Resident Engineers, Project Manager, and the QA/QC and Safety Team for their invaluable insights and collaboration. For transparency and technical reference, I have included engineering calculations in this NCR and notes from Consultants/Engineers/RE. The calculations shared here are simplified technical references for discussion and knowledge sharing. They are not intended to replace formal engineering design or certification by the project’s appointed consultants. Project details have been anonymised to protect client and contractual confidentiality.

1. DESCRIPTION OF NON CONFORMANCE

During routine inspection and site audit, multiple non-conformances were observed related to plumbing, electrical installations, waterproofing, and drainage works. The works were found to be not complying with approved drawings, specifications, and relevant standards.

1.1 Incorrect Plumbing Installation

• Water supply and sewer lines installed without proper gradient and support.

• Inadequate pipe bedding and backfilling observed,

• Pipe joints not sealed as per specification, leading to leakage risks.

• As-built routing deviates from approved shop drawings without Engineer’s approval.

1.2 Incorrect Electrical Installation

Electrical conduits improperly embedded in concrete and structural elements without coordination with structural drawings.

• Cable trays and trunking installed without proper spacing, support brackets, and earthing.

• Junction boxes and manholes installed below flood level without waterproof enclosures.

M & E Consultant Notes :

What You Should NOT Include (Unless You Are the Electrical Designer)

Avoid full system design calculations such as:

Transformer sizing, full load demand calculation, harmonics analysis, coordination and discrimination curves,

These are the Electrical Consultant’s contractual responsibility.

For NCR or Case Study: Best Practice Approach

Include: Measured values, code limits, simple verification calculations, photos and test reports

Avoid:

Redesign proposals unless formally appointed, assumptions without measurement, guessing load profiles

1.3 Failure to Implement Waterproofing System

• No waterproof membrane applied to underground utility chambers and culverts.

• Inadequate joint sealing at pipe penetrations and construction joints.

• Protective screed and drainage layers omitted in buried structures.

1.4 Neglect of Proper Drainage

• Inadequate surface and subsoil drainage leading to water ponding.

• Missing or blocked weep holes and subsoil drains.

• Poor grading and compaction of backfill causing water accumulation around utilities.

.(Notes from RE and SC) - Drainage Flow Capacity Calculation - Surface and subsurface drainage design is typically based on the Rational Method for runoff estimation and Manning’s Equation for pipe capacity.

4. Drainage Failure Engineering Interpretation

Drainage failure typically occurs when:

• Pipe diameter is undersized (Qpipe < Qrunoff)

• Pipe gradient is flatter than recommended (S too low)

• No subsoil drainage leading to hydrostatic pressure buildup

• No waterproofing membrane causing seepage into structure

• Inadequate discharge points or blocked outfalls

5. Engineering Implications of Poor Drainage

Structural Risks - Increased pore water pressure = reduced soil shear strength, foundation bearing capacity reduction, differential settlement and slab cracking

Building Envelope Risks - Rising damp and mould growth, corrosion of reinforcement, electrical system failure due to moisture ingress

2. REFERENCE

• JKR Standard Specification for Building Works (JKR 20800)

• JKR Arahan Teknik (Jalan) for road and infrastructure drainage

• JKR Arahan Teknik (Jalan) 4/85 – Urban Drainage Design

• JKR Standard Specification for Building Works (2014 & latest revisions)

• JKR Guidelines for Drainage and Subsoil Drainage

• JKR Standard Specification for Electrical Works

• JKR Guidelines on Building Electrical Systems

• SPAN Guidelines for Sewerage and Plumbing Installation

• Malaysian Sewerage Industry Guidelines (MSIG)

• Electricity Supply Act 1990 & Electricity Regulations 1994

• ST Guidelines on Electrical Installation

• MS IEC 60364: Low Voltage Electrical Installations

• MS IEC 60502: Power Cables

• MS IEC 60947: Switchgear and Controlgear

• MS EN 12056 - Gravity drainage systems

• MS EN 1992 / MS EN 1997 (Eurocode 2 & 7*) – Structural and geotechnical provisions

• MS EN 12056: Gravity Drainage Systems Inside Buildings

• MS 1228: Code of Practice for Sanitary Plumbing and Drainage

• MS 1525: Building Services Energy Efficiency

• BS EN 752: Drain and Sewer Systems Outside Buildings

• BS EN 1610: Construction and Testing of Drains and Sewers

• *Eurocode 7 (EN 1997): Geotechnical Design (drainage effect on soil parameters)

• BS 8102 – Code of Practice for Protection of Structures Against Water from the Ground

• BS 7671 (Electrical Installations and IET Wiring Regulations)

• IEC 60364 Series

• CONQUAS (CIDB QLASSIC) - QA/QC Team, HIRARC - HSSE Team

3. TECHNICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

3.1 Structural and Operational Risks

• Leakage leading to soil softening and settlement of pavements and foundations

• Electrical short circuits and system failures due to water ingress

• Corrosion of metallic services and premature asset deterioration

• Flooding of utility corridors and manholes

• Public safety hazards and service disruptions

3.2 Engineering Consequences

• Increased maintenance and lifecycle costs

• Potential road subsidence and pavement failures

• Non-compliance with statutory authority requirements (Local Authority, SPAN, TNB, JKR)

• Contractual disputes and LAD exposure

4.0 ROOT CAUSE

5.0 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

5.1 Plumbing Works

• Reinstall pipes with correct gradient and bedding (sand/cement bedding).

• Pressure test water lines and leakage test sewer lines.

• Update as-built drawings and obtain Engineer’s approval.

5.2 Electrical Works

• Reroute conduits away from critical structural zones.

• Install proper earthing, supports, and waterproof enclosures.

• Conduct insulation resistance and continuity testing.

5.3 Waterproofing

• Apply membrane systems (bituminous, HDPE, or crystalline),

• Seal all construction joints and penetrations with approved sealants,

• Install protective layers and drainage boards.

5.4 Drainage

• Install subsoil drains, geotextiles, and filter layers.

• Regrade and compact backfill to design levels.

• Ensure positive drainage to outfalls.

6. PREVENTIVE ACTIONS

• Implement BIM coordination for M&E and Civil works.

• Mandatory Inspection Test Plan (ITP) hold points for services installation.

• Third-party waterproofing specialist engagement.

• Training and certification for plumbing and electrical installers.

• SCADA/IoT monitoring for water levels and leakage detection (for critical infrastructure).

7. RISK ASSESSMENT AND REGISTER UPDATES

8. CONCLUSION

This NCR highlights critical non-conformances that compromise structural integrity, public safety, and asset durability. Immediate corrective and preventive measures must be implemented to mitigate long-term engineering and contractual risks.