I refer to the news report ('Toll hike needed to cushion govt pay-out to Plus: Samy', Dec 10) where Works Minister S Samy Vellu was reported to have told Parliament that "Plus has incurred massive loses since 1988" to justify the government's decision for the toll hike.

However, an AFP report yesterday, "Indebted conglomerate UEM unveils major revamp" said that UEM "planned to list highway operator unit Plus by mid-2002".

How can Plus be listed if it had incurred 'massive' losses as claimed by Samy? Were the losses justifiable - toll rates have increased several times since 1988 and the number of cars using the highway has increased thanks to Proton and Perodua.

On Saturdays, Sundays and on the eve of public holidays, the stretch of highway between Nilai and Seremban is jammed with slow-moving cars. It takes 45 to 80 minutes to travel this stretch when it would normally take just 10 to15 minutes a few years ago.

If Plus still incurs losses in spite of this, the only logical explanation, among others, is the way the highway was constructed and the tendering process.

UEM as the main contractor for the highway, carved a certain profit margins for itself before sub-tendering the construction to the other contractors. Thus the cost of the highway was invariably higher than if the construction were to be tendered out to the other contractors directly.

The constant repairs on the highway also revealed the low quality of work despite the massive costs incurred.

Years ago, Plus used to advertise with its tag line 'faster, safer and more efficient'. It has dropped that because it is now certainly not any safer to travel on the highway which has potholes and uneven stretches along the way, and certainly not faster.