Why Ocm Land Swap Warrants Further Scrutiny

---

 Former OCM deputy president Abdul Azim Zabidi clarifies his position on the land swap deal involving Wisma OCM and the proposed Olympic House in Bukit Jalil.
From Abdul Azim Zabidi
In response to the article published by Free Malaysia Today titled “Why Azim’s OCM land swap criticism falls flat”, I am issuing this statement to clarify and reaffirm my position on the land swap deal involving Wisma OCM and the proposed Olympic House in Bukit Jalil.
I appreciate the discourse generated by the article, although it is regrettable that Free Malaysia Today did not carry my earlier press statement, issued on June 30.
I also wish to clarify that my concerns were raised within appropriate forums, and that the timing of my objections was based on newly surfaced information and evolving circumstances.
Constructive debate is vital to ensuring transparency, accountability, and the long-term sustainability of our national sports institutions.
In this spirit, I must respectfully disagree with several assertions made in the article and reiterate my concerns, which are grounded in financial prudence, strategic foresight, and transparent governance. I believe the deal warrants further scrutiny and clarification.
Lease tenure: 99-year vs 30-year sublease
It is misleading to suggest that a 30-year sublease “mirrors” the current 99-year lease. The existing arrangement provides OCM with long-term control and planning flexibility. A 30-year sublease introduces renewal risk, potential rent escalation, and dependency on future government decisions.
For an institution with national responsibilities that claims to enjoy autonomous status and free from government handouts, tenure security should be non-negotiable.
Developer interest and valuation
The claim that no developer was interested in Wisma OCM ignores the potential for strategic packaging and negotiation. The Malaysian Basketball Association (Maba), located nearby, secured a RM170 million cash deal with Exsim Development, demonstrating that ageing buildings in prime locations can attract serious offers when marketed effectively.
The RM93 million land-only valuation does not reflect the full redevelopment potential of the site. Wisma OCM is situated in a prime area of Kuala Lumpur, adjacent to Merdeka 118, one of Southeast Asia’s most valuable developments. A broader valuation should consider redevelopment potential, not just demolition cost.
Cash vs swap: market reality
Cash-based redevelopment is not unrealistic. Maba’s success proves that financial independence and strategic location are achievable. A swap deal that yields no cash and requires a RM10 million top-up is not optimal – it’s a compromise. OCM should have explored joint ventures or phased redevelopment options that preserved cash flow while unlocking land value.
Strategically located in the heritage area of Kuala Lumpur, with proximity to iconic landmarks such as Merdeka 118 and Petaling Street, the Maba project places its headquarters proudly in prime office space without leaving its current location, serving as a reminder of the valuable historical legacy that Mabab has left on this land.
Urgency and SEA Games timeline
The argument that delays would jeopardise preparations for the 2027 SEA Games is unfounded. The new Olympic House is scheduled for completion in 2028 – after the SEA Games. There is ample time to reassess the deal, consult stakeholders, and secure a more favourable arrangement.
Strategic positioning vs financial sustainability
While Bukit Jalil is a sports hub, strategic positioning must be backed by financial sustainability. A flagship building that drains resources or lacks ownership security is not a strategic asset – it’s a liability. Maba’s model shows that prestige and profitability can co-exist.
Income generation projections
Projected income from hotel ventures and rental spaces is speculative. OCM already generates income from Wisma OCM through hotel and office rentals. The new model introduces higher costs and less control. Without ownership, OCM’s ability to reinvest or restructure income streams is limited.
Governance and transparency
Ministerial support and votes from the members are important, but they do not replace the need for independent financial review and open debate. Transparency is not just about formal processes – it’s about meaningful stakeholder engagement and full disclosure of risks and alternatives. A post-annual general assembly audit would strengthen credibility, not diminish it.
Infrastructure vs human capital
Infrastructure should serve human capital, not compete with it. A building is only as effective as the programs and people it supports. Investing in scholarships, training, and grassroots development yields long-term returns. A building without a strong human foundation is just concrete.
Nostalgia and status quo
My critique is not rooted in nostalgia. It is based on financial logic and strategic foresight. Effective leadership involves questioning deals that may compromise future stability. Challenging the status quo is not resistance – it is responsibility. After all, I was among the decision-makers who agreed for the Wisma OCM land to undergo a valuation process.
Digital archiving is not location-dependent
Digital archiving is a software and systems issue, not a building issue. It can be implemented in any secure facility, including the existing Wisma OCM.
In fact, during my tenure as deputy president of OCM from 2018 to 2021, I actively advocated the digitalisation of OCM’s archiving system. The initiative was aimed at modernising record-keeping, improving accessibility, and preserving institutional memory.
Cloud-based systems, remote access, and secure servers do not require a new physical structure to function effectively. OCM could upgrade its IT infrastructure within Wisma OCM at a fraction of the cost.
If OCM claims that it has adequate financial strength, investing in digital systems should be part of operational budgeting, not tied to a RM93 million construction project.
Many international federations or sports bodies globally operate from modest headquarters while maintaining world-class digital systems. In fact, funds allocated for sublease premium could be redirected to:
Building a centralised digital archive accessible to all NSAsTraining staff in digital literacy and data management Developing athlete performance databases and analytics toolsStewardship and vision
Raising concerns about financial exposure, tenure risk, and missed opportunities is not fear mongering – it is stewardship. A healthy debate should welcome scrutiny, not dismiss it. My position is rooted in protecting OCM’s long-term interests and ensuring that decisions made today do not burden future generations.
Conclusion
If due diligence reveals that the deal is lopsided, OCM has every right to decline and maintain its current position while revisiting the proposal at a more appropriate time.
The proposed Olympic House is only expected to be completed in 2028, after the SEA Games. There is no urgency that justifies compromising long-term value.
I urge OCM to consider a review or independent audit. The agreement with the Malaysia Stadium Board can always be revisited or rescinded if necessary.
This is not a challenge. It is a proposal for OCM, as an umbrella body, to think of the greater interest of the organisation, the management, the 58 member associations, our athletes, and our future. - FMT
Abdul Azim Zabidi is a former deputy president of the Olympic Council of Malaysia.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---