Putrajaya Streetlights

Extract from the Star Thursday 18 May 2006

Putrajaya Holdings sued

By CHELSEA L.Y. NG

KUALA LUMPUR: The beautiful streetlights in Putrajaya have become the subject of a lawsuit between a contractor, a British-based firm and developer Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd.

The contractor, Acumen Marketing Sdn Bhd, claimed that it was the registered proprietor of the Nyonya Baba-themed streetlamps, and added that Putrajaya Holdings and five other contractors infringed on the copyright of three of its designs – Tepak Sireh, Kerongsang and Hairpin.

The foreign firm – DW Windsor Ltd – is claiming ownership of the copyright for the lantern designs on the streetlamps.

Both companies say Putrajaya Holdings, which developed Putrajaya, had reproduced and installed the three prototype Nyonya & Baba design streetlamps without their consent.

Acumen Marketing claims that in early 2001, it designed the Nyonya & Baba streetlamps and proposed that they be installed in Putrajaya.

Putrajaya Holdings accepted its products and installed them at Precinct 2, Core Island.

It said that pursuant to the contract, it submitted numerous technical drawings and specifications of the streetlamps and lanterns, and added that the negotiations for the assignment and supply to five other precincts were never concluded.

The plaintiffs later found out that the five contractors – Lysaght Marketing Sdn Bhd, Potential Light Sdn Bhd, Sena Letrik Sdn Bhd, Lights Genesis Sdn Bhd and Hartasuma Sdn Bhd – had either supplied or installed the alleged infringed streetlights and lanterns.

Just about two weeks ago I was talking about the street lights at Putrajaya with a friend - joking with him on why there are so many designs installed and the decision-making in choosing the designs and imagining how much money the designer made in this project.

Well, what happened as in the news is not at all surprising to me - a good proposal being 'hijacked'. I have known a few cases of this sort and I have also personally experienced it. One is the case of a small company proposing a project using a German technology and submitted this proposal to a GLC which in turn find this project viable and good and finally the GLC decided to pursue the project without the proposer with all the excuses including that the proposer is small and not viable. Another is a proposal for labelling something submitted by a small company to the government and finally the government decided to implement it but giving the proposer only a very small portion of the contract only after much begging. Fortunately for me, my proposal was purposely simplified but seemed to them a good idea and they decided to implement it without my participation and inputs and finally abandoned; not surprising to me as they lack the inputs and understanding of the real concepts for successful implmentation. Another experience I had was with a multi-national company interested in my product design but not willing to give me the privilege to produce and supply it but to open-tender it out. Much earlier in my profession as an engieer, my design was used without being paid a single cent eventhough I was promised a professional fee.