A BRIEF TIPS FOR AUDITORS, INSPECTORS AND ASSESSORS

In any construction-related article, case study, or posting I have written, whenever I reference a standard, guideline, or code of practice, I have noticed a recurring issue during audits, assessments, inspections, and testing/monitoring activities. Often, while these documents are cited in Method Statements, Inspection & Test Plans, or other records, the actual standards are not readily available for verification.

In my practice, I always request to see the referenced standards, either in hard copy or digital form, to confirm that the references are genuine and not merely copied from another source. I also verify whether the standards were obtained through the official issuing body (my first preference) or downloaded from other sources.

When standards are downloaded, I ensure proper intellectual property safeguards are applied for example, marking the copy as “FOR REFERENCE ONLY” or, in the case of internal training or briefings, as “FOR TRAINING PURPOSES ONLY.” These measures help prevent infringement of intellectual property rights and are aligned with ISO 9001 requirements regarding the control of documented information.

The next step, which often causes hesitation, is to ask the auditee to demonstrate exactly where in the standard the formula, standard deviation, tolerance, or methodology is specified. If drawings are involved, I request the auditee to indicate the specific chainage, gridline, or location referenced. This ensures that the cited references are correctly applied and understood, rather than merely mentioned.

Concrete Tank Repairs: Gaps in Standards and Analysis

A Project Engineer was appointed by the contractor to manage crack repair and waterproofing works for a reinforced concrete water tank. During implementation and subsequent performance review, several areas were identified where the approach could be strengthened. A Method Statement was submitted to the RE and I was asked to comment as well.

a) Repair Methods

The repair methods adopted were largely standardised solutions, typically suitable for general concrete repairs. (I think it was copied from some brochures) However, water-retaining structures impose more stringent requirements in terms of watertightness, durability, and long-term performance, which were not fully addressed in the proposed methodology.

b) Strategy

The repair strategy did not explicitly reference recognised standards such as BS 8007 or EN 1992, which are commonly used to guide the design and repair of water-retaining concrete structures. Referencing these standards would provide clearer technical justification and performance assurance. The selection of injection materials was undertaken without documented evaluation of compatibility with the existing structure or confirmation of suitability for permanent wet conditions.

c) Material Ageing

A more structured assessment would help reduce the risk of recurring leakage. Following continued leakage after repairs, the explanation provided focused on the age of the concrete. While material ageing can be a contributing factor, further investigation into crack behaviour, joint conditions, and construction details would be beneficial to establish the root cause and determine appropriate corrective measures.

d) Conclusion

Overall, while the intent of the repair works is acknowledged, the observations suggest that additional specialist input and a more structured technical approach would improve confidence in the long-term effectiveness of the repairs and better protect the Client’s interests.

A Brief Deviation on Language and Sensitivity

People have become increasingly “creative” in policing words that are deemed sensitive, often without considering context, intent, or history. I recall the days of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, when even the phrase “It’s Morphin Time” was questioned by authorities, as though it subtly promoted the use of “morphine.” In reality, the term originates from metamorphosis. By that logic, “It’s Metamorphosis Time” would be more accurate but clearly impractical. Similarly, the mere presence of a triangle in a logo is sometimes hastily labelled “illuminati,” without any attempt to understand historical or design context. More recently, I was asked to replace the word “karma” with “destiny”, on the grounds that the former might affect one’s faith. I have not even touched on phrases such as “the Mecca of …”, which in American English simply means “the centre or hub of something,” yet would likely invite criticism solely because Mecca refers to the holy city of Makkah. On another occasion, I was mocked and labelled “secular” by a senior alumnus for remarking purely as a compliment that Kota Bharu today resembles Madinah in its visible Islamic character and atmosphere. That comment was misconstrued as mockery, as though I were trivialising the city’s identity. This was particularly puzzling, given that Kota Bharu is a city in the state where I was born. I later asked him to clarify what he meant by “secular,” a term often casually applied based on assumptions, even appearance. Such labels, when loosely thrown, risk implying judgement over matters no one else is qualified to assess. The same pattern appears in everyday greetings such as “Happy New Year,” “Merry Christmas,” or “Happy Deepavali” there will always be objections from someone. Even common expressions like “what the hell”, or other colloquial language even four-letter words that have become part of everyday language are increasingly scrutinised beyond their intended meaning. So what can we do about it? Perhaps the most realistic response is not confrontation, but maturity, to acknowledge sensitivities where necessary, remain conscious of context, and move on without losing our ability to communicate thoughtfully, respectfully, and honestly.

KARMA INDEED

I still remember how arrogant some people were back then, so confident they even dared me to report them, boasting about their “connections” and claiming they had nothing to fear. Ironically, I was invited as a third-party auditor by the very same company that hired these individuals.

What I never understood was their reaction to my findings. I wasn’t there to find fault for the sake of it, I pointed out deficiencies so they could improve. After all, I was simply doing the job I was paid to do. Yet they objected without logic or justification, pure veto, no substance. That was when I began to suspect there might be more beneath the surface, possibly even corruption.

What troubled me most was realizing that their client was effectively “using” me as a channel to get to them. Now, hearing familiar names being arrested, I feel no sense of satisfaction or vindication. Instead, there’s a quiet sense of sympathy.

If only they had listened.

(That said...more are "coming" soon)

TENDER FAILURES - MISSING POST MORTEM : A GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE

 

During several recent governance based assessments of construction related companies and corporations, I observed a recurring and systemic gap, after losing a bid, no formal post-mortem or structured tender review meeting was conducted. This was particularly concerning given that such reviews were clearly prescribed in many organisations core business processes, manuals, or governance frameworks. In practice, once a tender was unsuccessful, focus shifted immediately to the next opportunity, leaving little room for reflection or institutional learning. This disconnect between documented procedures and actual practice raises questions about accountability, process ownership, and governance effectiveness.

The reasons for unsuccessful bids were rarely isolated. More often, they were multi-layered and interconnected. Common factors included limitations in track record such as strong civil engineering experience but weaker M&E credentials for integrated projects leading to reduced client confidence. In some cases, technical expertise was assembled on an ad-hoc or short-term basis, undermining bid credibility and continuity. Pricing strategies were also a major contributor, ranging from uncompetitive submissions to aggressive underpricing that failed to adequately reflect project risks.

Project planning weaknesses were another recurring theme. Critical Path Method (CPM) schedules frequently failed to account for construction sequencing, interface risks, regulatory approvals, or external dependencies. These shortcomings were further compounded by material cost volatility, optimistic supply chain assumptions, and unrealistic resource loading. As a result, bids that appeared attractive on paper often lacked robustness when evaluated by experienced assessors.

From a governance perspective, the absence of structured post-mortem reviews represents a significant missed opportunity for organisational learning and risk management. Without proper documentation, root cause analysis, and feedback loops, organisations struggle to distinguish between internal weaknesses and external market conditions. Consequently, the same shortcomings are repeated across multiple tenders, leading to inefficient use of bid resources and a gradual erosion of competitiveness.

Post-bid evaluations should not be viewed as fault-finding exercises, but as strategic tools to improve bidding accuracy, capability alignment, risk pricing, and tender discipline. More importantly, the lessons learned must be formally integrated into future practices, including marketing narratives, tender qualification and “go/no-go” decisions, and targeted capacity-building initiatives. Over time, this structured learning loop enhances bid success rates, supports long-term sustainability, and strengthens overall governance maturity.

STAR TREK - BRIDGING THE FUTURE VISION AND THE PRESENT ACHIEVEMENT IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

I’ve always had an interest in Star Trek, mostly the movies and TV series across different timelines. I wouldn’t call myself a hardcore Trekkie, definitely not a collector (that honour goes to my elder brother). For me, it’s never been about memorabilia or fandom labels, but about the ideas.

Star Trek may be fiction, but the engineering theory behind many of its ideas was always sound. What once looked like imagination just needed time, better materials, stronger computing power, and the right scale. Today, technologies like cloud computing, AI, blockchain, and even quantum computing are no longer theoretical, we’re already living with them.

This was no accident. Star Trek didn’t rely purely on imagination. It drew on advice from some of the best scientific minds, including NASA, physicists, engineers, medical experts, and computer scientists, ensuring many concepts were grounded in real science rather than fantasy.

And beyond the technology, Star Trek also instilled naval-style discipline, intelligence-type protocols, etiquette, and governance principles. The structure of Starfleet, chain of command, accountability, ethics in decision-making is part of what makes the universe believable and inspiring.

At this age, especially in Malaysia, having interests like sci-fi often invites quiet ridicule. Some see it as childish, outdated, or something we were “supposed to outgrow.” Perhaps it’s also because Star Trek culture here was never as visible not many conventions, not much mainstream discussion even though Trekkies do exist.

What often goes unnoticed is that Star Trek technology is no longer fiction. We’re already living with many of its ideas:

a) Communicators = mobile phones

b) PADDs = tablets and e-readers

c) Talking to computers = Siri, Alexa, and other voice assistants

d) Video calls = now everyday life

e) Non-invasive medical scanners = rapidly evolving

f) Real-time language translation = no longer science fiction

g) Holographic images = we may not have enough photons and forcefields to generate a real-time holodeck, but this technology is already emerging through the feeling of AR, VR, and MR, using only headgear. It’s no longer fictional for modern-day architects, designers, aeronautics engineers, training simulations, and gamers, and these devices are getting smaller and more accessible every year.

Star Trek didn’t predict the future, it normalized it. It made people comfortable imagining a world where technology serves humanity, not the other way around.

I don’t need everyone to like Star Trek, and I’m not trying to convince anyone to. But I do think imagination, curiosity, and the ability to see beyond the present shouldn’t have an expiry date. Sometimes, interests don’t make you immature, they just mean you never stopped thinking.

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