Ingenieur Vol.81 January-March 2020 | Page 37

RANCANGAN MALAYSIA (RMK) IMPLEMENTED BY GOVERNMENT GREATER KUALA LUMPUR (GKL) SEWERAGE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION (SCC) IMPLEMENTED BY IWK GOVERNMENT SOFT LOAN (GSL) ASSET MANAGEMENT PROJECT (AMP) IMPLEMENTED BY DEVELOPERS** YEAR RM Bil RM Bil RM Bil RM Bil RM Bil RM Bil 1994 1995 RMK-6 0.50 1996 1997 1.13 1998 1999 RMK-7 0.60 2000 1.05 2001 1.12 2002 2.32 2003 RMK-8 2.40 1.46 2004 0.76 2.18 2005 1.40 2006 1.58 2007 1.56 2008 RMK-9 3.20 0.72 2009 1.91 2010 0.81 2011 1.21 2012 1.14 2013 RMK-10 4.90 0.02 1.28 2014 0.03 1.45 5.70 0.47 2015 0.05 0.99 2016 0.11 1.91 2017 RMK-11 1.20 0.06 0.66 2018 0.08 1.32 Total Investment 12.80 5.70 0.47 0.76 0.36 27.19 * Total Investment investment by The Government for sewerage projects was was about RM20.1 Billion. Billion. ** Investment by Developers is is based on on the the taken takeover of sewerage systems over the the years. Figure 6: Total investment by Government and Developers in Sewerage Projects well as the private sector. The new sewerage policy requires developers to provide sewerage systems comprising sewer network and sewage treatment plants deemed proper and functional as a pre-requisite to obtain a Certificate of Fitness (CF) (see Figure 5). Sewerage investment in the country is provided by the private sector and the Government. Developers are responsible for the construction and provision of sewerage systems which are essential for the comfort and healthy living conditions of communities. Other sewerage investments by the Government are for megascale and prominent developments such as Putrajaya, Cyberjaya and sewerage regionalisation schemes implemented under the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and Greater Kuala Lumpur (GKL) Sewerage Schemes. Other major projects include: Bunus, Pantai, Damansara and Langat Regional STPs. Projects Over the Last 25 Years Over the past 25 years, the development of the sewerage infrastructure in Malaysia has been extensive due to both private sector investment and Government funding (see Figure 6). 35