The proposed RM103 million land swap deal involving the Olympic Council of Malaysia (OCM) has sparked heated debate over whether the council’s strategic vision outweighs immediate financial implications.
When former OCM deputy president Abdul Azim Zabidi brands it as a “perplexing” giveaway, he overlooks the market realities underpinning the transaction.
His broadside, couched in warnings of “hidden costs” and “potential eviction,” collapses under scrutiny.
Azim’s objections lack commercial realism, betray tunnel vision, and do little more than seek headlines at the expense of OCM.
Valuation reality vs hypothetical windfall
Azim claims the nine-storey Wisma OCM, valued at RM132 million, should have netted pure cash for OCM.
Yet his demand for immediate liquidity overlooks two fundamental points.
One, almost no developer bid to take on the 1991‑built hotel and office block.
Two, the true value was in the land parcel alone, which was appraised at RM93 million.
OCM’s secretary‑general, Nasir Ali, points out that any serious bidder would have structured a swap, not a cash purchase, given the extent of demolition and redevelopment needed.
Azim’s insistence on “as is where is” cash ignores market reality.
The deal on the table reflects what the land is worth to developers ready to invest in Kuala Lumpur Sports City.
Sublease alarmism
Azim warns of a 30‑year sublease and the spectre of eviction.
But every commercial real estate transaction carries lease terms; subleases of this length are commonplace and represent long‑term security, not peril.
The land on Jalan Hang Jebat, where Wisma OCM stands, is government‑owned under a 99‑year lease — OCM never owned it outright — and the sublease simply mirrors the prevailing arrangement.
To frame standard lease mechanics as a disaster scenario is disingenuous and designed to stoke fear rather than engage with substance.
Ignoring the cost of “cheap” alternatives
Azim suggests building a more affordable headquarters or integrating a two‑star hotel, freeing funds for grants.
But this ignores OCM’s unanimous annual general meeting vote, and the endorsement of sports minister Hannah Yeoh and the Malaysia Stadium Corporation.
A “cheaper” site, say in Nilai, might yield short‑term budget relief but would sever OCM from the heartbeat of Malaysian sport: the Bukit Jalil sporting precinct.
A cash boost at the cost of stakeholder alienation and logistical inconvenience isn’t financial prudence, it’s penny‑wise and pound‑foolish.
The developer landscape
Azim urges OCM to reopen talks with PNB Merdeka Ventures.
In reality, PNB had every incentive to approach OCM if it prized the Wisma OCM site.
Nasir’s observation that PNB would have matched the terms of Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad (MRCB) if it was interested is telling.
The silence from bigger players underscores that MRCB’s proposal was the only genuine offer on the table.
Under the arrangement, MRCB will construct a new RM93 million facility on a 2.18 hectare parcel in Bukit Jalil, in exchange for Wisma OCM.
OCM will top up RM10 million to the stadium corporation for a 30‑year sublease on the new land, with construction slated to begin by the end of July and take 36 months to complete.
Waiting for a mythical “better deal” only risks leaving OCM in limbo, blowing deadlines, and jeopardising preparations for the 2027 SEA Games.
Strategic positioning over short‑term gain
Azim reduces the debate to cash‑in‑pocket metrics, while OCM leadership prioritises strategic positioning.
Olympic House in Bukit Jalil, modelled on the headquarters of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in Lausanne, Switzerland, signals Malaysia’s commitment to world‑class sports infrastructure and heritage.
A rejuvenated museum space, a proper hall of fame, banquet halls and media rooms will serve athletes, associations and the public far more effectively than a creaking city centre office barely fit for purpose.
True stewardship demands long‑term vision; you don’t build a national sports flagship on one‑year‑ahead profit forecasts.
Income generation isn’t a dirty word
Azim decries that OCM “incurs additional costs and risks,” but he neglects the robust revenue plan embedded in the new facility: hotel joint-venture income, office rentals for national associations and event hall bookings.
This diversified income stream is no gamble. It’s a professionally audited projection that far outstrips the meagre returns from letting Wisma OCM lie fallow or renting fragmented spaces.
OCM doesn’t require vast resources to sustain its activities.
IOC initiatives typically include funding from them, while major national sports associations receive backing from the national sports council.
OCM currently leases part of Wisma OCM to a hotel operator, contributing to an income stream that also includes office and event hall rentals.
Governance and transparency already in place
Another of Azim’s contentions is the lack of “cash benefits” and “transparency.”
Yet OCM secured ministerial support, a unanimous AGM resolution, independent valuations and a request for proposal (RFP) process, even if only three developers bid.
Azim’s calls to reopen discussions would only delay progress and diminish OCM’s credibility with the government and the private sector.
The right time to debate details was before the AGM, not after the headlines.
A misplaced focus on human capital
Azim’s recommendation to pour funds into “human capital development” is laudable, but it’s a false choice to pit infrastructure against people.
A world‑class headquarters facilitates modern management systems, digital archives and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) schemes far better than an ageing building.
By investing in Olympic House, OCM is investing in a professional environment that empowers staff, athletes and associations alike.
Risk of status quo bias
Behind Azim’s stance lies an attachment to the status quo, an understandable sentiment for someone who knows Wisma OCM well.
But nostalgia has no place in organisational strategy. Effective leadership recognises when assets become liabilities.
Clinging to a crumbling 34‑year‑old office risks operational inefficiency, higher upkeep costs, and a brand image stuck in the past.
Vision over fearmongering
Azim styles himself a guardian of OCM’s savings, but his objections read more like political posturing than constructive critique.
A genuine debate would weigh the substantial long‑term benefits of a purpose‑built sports headquarters against speculative cash calculations.
Instead, Azim traffics in hypothetical downsides, ignores market dynamics, and discounts the value of strategic alignment with Kuala Lumpur Sports City.
If he truly cares about the Olympic movement, he should get behind a plan that boosts visibility, revenue potential and operational capability rather than clinging to outdated premises and half‑baked objections.
Abdul Azim Zabidi (left) and Nasir Ali.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.