Lies and the Story of the Parliament leaks

The mainstream media has carried the official version of the Parliament House leaks. But like the whole episode itself, it is a porous story with large gaping holes.

Somebody's lying big-time.

Scrutinize the picture below. It is the Malaysian Parliament House. You can view it here. (Click the 'Reference' tab.)



The picture was downloaded from Polygum's website, a premier product of Belgian waterproofing company, Atab. Among it's many references around the world, it lists Malaysia's Parliament House as one of its completed projects covering a total of 2,000 sq m. That's about 20,000 sf or the area of four football fields. That plausibly equates to the entire flat roof area of the Parliament House.

But, as with the other projects on the list, no indication of the year is given.

Hence the logical question: When was this waterproofing exercise conducted? Was it 44 years ago when Parliament House was constructed? Could it be that this international brand is so wanting of business, it has to reach deep into its archives and pull a four decade-old project as reference?

I think not.

Scrutinize the picture again; see that aircon compressor unit ill-placed behind one of those sun-shading devices? That's newer technology around these parts. Right up to the 90s, air-conditioners in sweltering Malaysia were of the hole-in-wall types or window units. You can still see them in many buildings although the split-unit systems are the norm these days. Clearly, this picture is not from the 60s but much more recent. Assuming this picture was taken by the manufacturer upon completion of the job, what does that tell you about the period of the project?

Another fact: the Polygum waterproofing system was only launched in 1978, according to the manufacturer. It has since been upgraded with better materials. So again no way the Parliament House used a Polygum waterproofing system in its original inception in 1962.

I have written to Atab seeking clarification on this project. I imagine they will reply within a short period. They have to - it's their reputation on the line.

But for now let's turn our attention to the government and its conduct over this episode, specifically Samy Vellu. Samy says "the waterproofing material used when the building was constructed had worn off after 44 years, resulting in water seeping through the roof.


The Works Minister attributed a JKR (KL) report saying, among other reasons:

Waterproofing on the roof was not working and had been used beyond its lifespan;
Waterproofing was installed on the concrete surface without any protective layer;
(text verbatim from The Star)

Assuming though, that the gist of Polygum's claims is true - that it did conduct a waterproofing exercise on Parliament House - what the hell then are Samy and the JKR talking about?

And let's speculate a little given the morsels of info garnered from MSM's tape-recorder journalists. Polygum as a membrane-type waterproofing product is a packaged system. Any licenced applicator has to follow a series of procedures and specifications before the product is deemed functional and eligible for its 10-year insurance-backed guarantee. Polygum stakes its reputation on that.

But as with all waterproofing systems, there is limit to its scope - it doesn't cover the functioning of gutters and their accompanying downspouts. That is under the purview of building maintenance. Flat roofs are notorious for faulty or choked roof domes (rainwater outlets). A stray plastic bag, ciggie butts, debris and weeds can easily lodge the openings. Any number of malfunctioning roof domes will result in a flat roof simulating a swimming pool during a heavy downpour.

And that's trouble. The tao of water is about flow. It doesn't judge, and obeys two masters - gravity and capillary. When water collects into a sizeable pool, any alternative opening becomes a leak. It pours rather than ooze or bleed. That seems to be the case with Parliament House.

Not having had the benefit to walk on the Parliament House roof myself nor peek into the ceiling cavity, I can only deduce this: The heavy rainwater leaks into the interiors indicate that it is less of a roof waterproofing issue than gaping holes that have emerged due to negligence at the interface of various equipment and the roof. It may be broken mechanical pipes or large cracks close to the roof plane.

I suspect it is due to poor coordination work between the mechanical equipment (exhaust fans, central air-conditioning systems, water supply lines, sprinkler lines) where they penetrate the roof. These oftentimes happen when maintenance or repair is done without enough care hence compromising the waterproofing system in place. But I'm only speculating.

In short, the full true story hasn't been told.

Without proof, I do suspect waterproofing was redone, perhaps back in 2005 when Parliament first sprung a massive leak. The extent is why, possibly 2,000 sq m.

In April 25, 2005, Malaysiakini reported:
"It was 3.30pm. Parliament was in session and a legislator was speaking. There was heavy rain and thunderstorm outside. Suddenly, water started pouring into the chamber from a badly leaked roof, messing up the seats of several deputy ministers.
"Parliament workers frantically brought in buckets to collect the water. The microphone suddenly went dead. Then it was pitch black. Deputies in the House panicked and ran out. The meeting was adjourned indefinitely."

Some among us, tak mudah lupa. The penultimate line in the article then: Ramli said the parliamentary administrative department will conduct a thorough probe into the matter.

DAP's Lim Kit Siang then went on a subsequent rampage, unleashing a series of media statements in the month of May 2005. You can check the archives here and here. Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi's response then: "If there is a leak, it must be repaired."

Despite Samy's current claims to the contrary, I think it was. And I think repairs ran into the millions and worked just fine until recently. I think the building maintenance successfully defaulted on the 10-year warranty because some act was conducted quite recently by unqualified parties which ruined the waterproofing layer and subsequently voided the policy. Maybe they upgraded the aircon ducts, poked new pipes here and there, who knows. No one's clarifying, neither were reporters asking.

Also ask yourself this - why would Samy state such: "We not only have to waterproof the roof but also create a heat-proof layer on top of it. It is quite a big job." For crying out loud, what is a heat proof layer, dude? And why the need for it when waterproofing systems work just fine in the searing Arizona sun?

This architect ( he is on RIBA's chartered list, you know) needs some Continuing Education courses.

A lot of flak is being directed towards the waterproofing system to explain away the Parliament House leaks.

Old, worn-out system that hasn't been replaced since 1962? Or a false claim by a waterproofing company of a job it never did?

Somebody's lying.



Credit - Mid-post picture: New Straits Times