Sweet victory against 'land-grabbing gov't'

Musa Aman - watch out and stop TAED now.

 TAB is largely state land grabbed by TAED and others including Musa Aman, Vicc Paul to do commercial project.

For the stateland grabbed by Musa Aman as CM, TAED must pay the market price similar to those private land acquired.

  The State has a policy that no more reclamation of the sea, and why it is allowed for TAB now?

 

 

Sweet victory against 'land-grabbing gov't'

 

Nine years of struggle and determination in defending their native customary rights (NCR) land has come to a close with victory for 83 native Iban landowners from 12 longhouses in Pantu, Sri Aman.

In Kuching yesterday, the Court of Appeal ruled in their favour in their battle against the Sarawak government, Land Custody Development Authority (LCDA) and two others that had grabbed their land for the planting of oil palm.
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/284877

MyBREATH submission after hard copy filed on 23/12/2014

The fact that  Team member in Table 6.1 Dr. Klaus Pedersen’s registration with EPD expired on 30 September, 2014 decides the validity of the second portion of the SEIA.  Joshua



Friends of TAB, please submit the review to the EPD by 19th January, 2015.  Urgent.  Joshua 16/1/2015




BREATH SUBMISSION by Joshua Y. C. Kong jknow823@gmail.com  013-8394513; 012-8380897

This second submission code named BREATH of valid points and comments should be read together with the first submission of views and not to be considered as unreasonable opposition to the TAED.  BREATH wraps up this submission on very important items namely Beach Reclamation Erosion Airport Trees Habitat  I am all for nature as nature is perfect creation of God. 

[please see the 8 BREATH points and demands in the conclusion in paragraph 8]

[ the full paper would be posted here after hard copy filed]

MyBREATH submission   BREATH SUBMISSION by Joshua Y. C. Kong jknow823@gmail.com  013-8394513; 012-8380897 This second submission code named BREATH of valid points and comments should be read together with the first submission of views and not to be considered as unreasonable opposition to the TAED.  BREATH wraps up this submission on very important items namely Beach Reclamation Erosion Airport Trees Habitat  I am all for nature as nature is perfect creation of God.  [please see the 8 BREATH points and demands in the conclusion in paragraph 8] 1.  INTRODUCTION 1.1  The call by EPD for submission of less than two weeks in the year end holidays season is very unreasonable and TAEDSB should not use this flimsy reason to claim support for the TAED project as responses would be few. I do not know why such a rush when most people would not work seriously or rather relaxed until after Chinese New Year in February, 2015.  For me, I work all year round despite of my age especially when there is such an important project to review and provide positive comments to Save Tanjung Aru Beach (STAB). I work alone outside the group TAG2.0. The views expressed here are solely mine without any relevant technical skills but largely common sense.  I could the impact of my little effort in the first submission on TAED to EPD on 16th July, 2014 but no reply from you. 1.2  On the Revised SEIA, it was found not available in the EPD’s website on 16th December, 2014 as per newspapers’ article.  Fortunately someone sent me a copy online.  Why EPD did not send me one as my earlier submission had my email at the top right of page 1?  What is the KPI of EPD?  One thing that is certain is that the less people knows about this SEIA, the better for some people.  1.3  Forums on private or public TAED. 1.3.1  What happen to all the public forums as promised at the launch of TAED on 16h September, 2013.  As there were few and far apart public forums on TAED, as TAED is deemed a “private” of sort project and why should the public be the “troublemakers”?  Our views had been challenged lopsidedly especially in the press in favour of the “private” owners of the TAEDSB.  My sole neutral letter to Daildy Express was not published when those letters or press releases or articles in the favour of the “private” owners were given so much spaces like shouting down at the public when TAED is supposed to a state-owned public project. 1.3.2  There was one forum on State Planning Conference 2013 on 12th December, 2013 as weird with unspecified organiser and my wife and I were allowed into the Conference FOC but later were asked to pay for the conference fee. One of the conference papers was on TAED.  So where is the promised OPEN public forums on TAED?  So can I draw a conclusion that TAED is indeed a “private” project on largely public domain trying to make quick money even with a State sponsored Conference. [see the handout on that Conference below]   1.3.3  The modus operandi of the impatient promoters also likely “rent seekers” of public properties had been exposed through and through as TAED was already in an advanced stage of preliminary development before it was disclosed to the public at large. 1.4  Team member in Table 6.1 Dr. Klaus Pedersen’s registration with EPD expired on 30 September, 2014 and that is when this SEIA was finalised on 17th October, 2014.  Why is it that his registration was not renewed?  So in between 30 September, 2014 and 17th October, 2014 any work done can be deemed null and void affecting the validity of this Report. 2.  BEACH 2.  So in this BREATH submission, I would like to mention on the 6 key items not omitting points already raised in the first submission.   2.1   2.2.2.1  Beach  (based on SEIA reference) The existing 1.4 metre Tg Aru beach (TAB)  is unlikely to be improved with a new beach (not water front) with quality and wider one. 2.2  The reasons are as follows:- 2.2.1  Can you show me one that has been done without costly maintenance to maintain it as a sandy beach? 2.2.2  Given that the equilibrium of the new waves/currents and water level would be finding its new positioning, the area would be affected in unknown possibilities. 2.2.3  Nothing is for sure how the new scenario would develop as the Tg Aru Beach or its hinterland proper would be a new structure of dredged area and raised ground levels of Beach 2, and Beach 3 and beyond towards Petagas. 2.2.4  Again nothing is for sure how erosion would emerge with the areas of the new beach and instead of getting quality wider beach, more unexpected erosion could occur as it was in the 1980s and 1990s due to the massive sea filling around the Kota Kinabalu port area now and in the near future when it was in Sinsuran and Segama (1980s) and 1990s (Suria Sabah site) areas in Kota Kinabalu City. 2.2.5   The damage of the critical climate change especially in Sabah which had seen increase of 3 degrees centigrade for 40 years from 1960 to 2000 according to the official weather statistics. [Source : Book titled “Water” by Joshua Y. C. Kong.]  So how can anyone be sure the new artificial beach of whatever artificial nature be assured of no damage in the immediate future and possibly irreparable as left to the ravages of the weather as exacerbated by the worsening climate rises globally affecting all the oceans.    2.2.6  So this SEIA is just superficial as far as the justification of a very expensive artificial new beach at Tg Aru for the replacement of a very beautiful natural sandy beach just needing some improvement with common sense after a due diligence exercise with the hind sight of improvement at minimium costs and effort.  The sort of expected “quality and wider new” beach could be non functional at all.   2.2.7  Would TAB in its present much neglected conditions all known for more than two decades due to the relevant authorities fault be re-invigorated by the planting of adequate mangrove trees with appropriate conducive landscape and generally clean up of the prevailing mess? 3.   RECLAMATION 3.1   2.2.25  Reclamation of TAED 3.1.1  This is definitely a non starter as where in the world is there such a massive reclamation of 444 acres including substantial part of sea to the depth of 3 - 9 ? meters?  The parameters of this operation such as soil availablilty from the sea nearby or land further afield can very much disturb the environment temporary or permanently.  The SEIA has not sanctioned the Standard Operation Procedure for such massive reclamation operation to be adhere to and that the parties concerned would strictly comply with such specific stipulated SOP. 3.1.2  This SEIA has not considered the status of the coastline of the west coast of Sabah with the reclamation in the context of erosion given the water/current pressure has to be diverted to elsewhere except some have said that the current is not strong in the area.  Who would now know how would the direction of current after China had a massive reclaimed area in the nearby Spratley islands zone? 4.   EROSION 4.1.  3.1.3.1 Erosion 4.2   This item is done in great style by DHI as illustrated with data of SPY 1966 for the next 48 years and quote “threatened within 5-10 years unless remedial action is taken” 4.3  So DHI suggests the sole solution is a beach front or sea front with massive reclamation as earlier commented in 3. 4.4  How would the edition of SPY 1966 be reliable and comparable now in the context of scale, technology then and now, and why anyone was interested in the TAB in 1966? 4.4.1  Why now more attention is drawn to the less prominient and more remote area in the third beach? 4.4.2  Why not DHI secure the recent satellite images of Spot Asia for more appropriate comparison in 1987 and  2014 to give more assertive data?. 4.4.3   TAEDSB CEO did not qualify in his statement of the specific areas with acute erosion hence misrepresentation. 4.4.4  Solving the erosion with massive reclamation is akin to curing “cancer” with “cancer”, both remotely possible and costs - initial outlay and annual maintenance - prohibitive with uncertain results and bordering on an ecological bigger disaster in the making. 5.  AIRPORT 5.1  The Airport is such an important item in parallel to the TAB throughout the length and yet the SEIA Report only briefly mentioned it in some instances. 5.2  With the massive reclamation towards the sea at a higher level and the Kepayan hills at the other side of the airport, the airport can be a valley of sort and nobody knows how the water would flow and accumulated in an area especially a valley in scenario of flash floods coupled with high tide.  Even KLIA2 was flooded at the apron and some part of the tarmac recently. 5.3  To end any dispute of that to happen or not, the choice is for the public to accept any argument and it is more appropriate that we give a value to the airport so that when it is destroyed by whatever reasons in whatever situations including disturbance to any plane in flight, the parties concerned would be held fully liable. TAEDSB is likely in a precarious position to take the full blame for the “demise” of the Airport or KKIA and KKIA2.. 6.  TREES 6.1  What will happen to the existing valuable endemic trees or flora is anyone to imagine.  For an ecological project like Tanjung Aru Eco Development, it is likely that most of the existing exotic old trees would perish especially with the massive reclamation impacting the roots adversely in the present second and third beach. 6.2  To cut the argument short, we need to give each existing tree as marked a certain value and monthly audit be done once operation/development is started and the compensation be given to various assigned NGOs. 6.3  The trees are also resting/transit place for some priceless exotic birds without any value to be attached to that. TAEDSB would argue that any trees lost would be replaced and of course with the young also likely “alien” plants.  7.  HABITAT 7.1  2.2.2.2  Public Park and Amenities The inclusion of the many artificial facilities in this list is just an excuse to do what are not really needed even with TAED making it no longer an eco project but likely a semi-commercial undertaking and if all these facilities are utilised to the full the likely over-crowding in times to come would be counter productive for those who would be the residents in the area.  Woes like parking, cleanilessness, pollution and noise level would be prohibitive for the sustenance of the prevailing transquility of the Tg Atu Beach now.  We are not assured of the exact nature of such new amenities in the context of ecology.   The increased size of Prince Philip Park is irrelevant as it is not a proportionate increase of the overall area including an exclusive Golf Course. All the lack of amenities under KKCH cannot be an excuse for the massive development of TAED.  When KKCH failed, the State and Federal Governments had also failed.  Don’t use this stupid excuse to destroy Tg Aru Beach in 3 beaches beyond recogition. With TAED, a massive ecological disaster is just waiting to happen. 7.2  SOLE NATURAL SANDY BEACH IN THE CITY It has been indisputeable that TAB is Kota Kinabalu’s sole comfort zone left for decades for leisure and sun set watching plus the birds’ calling place. It would never be the same again with the proposed massive very costly physical and eco-adverse project. Many would miss it once it is gone especially with the recent awareness of the beach. 7.3  State Land to be maintained as socio-economic status. 7.3.1  The status of the state land including the foreshores, seashores, open sea area as reclaimed should be gazetteed as stateland to prevent them falling into possession of others in any malfunctions of economic or commercial development. Sabah had lost too much state assets -  land and otherwise including the sole Sabah bank.  None of the land of TAED as a prime heritage site should be charged to any bank/finance agency to avoid the onerous situation should abandonement of the TAED occurs. 7.3.2  Although TAED is claimed to be owned and managed by the State, there is doubt and lack of transparency when the status of the Chief Executive Officer is in doubt.  Not all the land in TAED had been purchased at genuine market value. 7.3.3  So whatever land of the State must be declared in a Gazette as State assets prior to the start of the project.  Lets do an accounting accordingly.  Otherwise it is a “private” project on largely public domain and implication of abuse of power and criminal breach of trust. The titles of the TAED land should be exhibited. 8.  CONCLUSION - 8 BREATH points 8.1  It is very important that there is a mechanism of monitoring and accounting as once TAED is started, it is beyond control of the public as many items are unspecified in the revised SEIA. 8.2  Nothing is best or better as a natural sandy beach than anything else like the unreachable and untouchable Sun.   8.3   The reclamation process would present a period of uncertainty for our breath as pollution would be too abundant to be tolerated be it from the source of materials from the sea to the hills to be cut.  8.4  We have tolerated the minimum erosion from the waves for decades and the associated mess from our severage system as mismanaged for some years, and so far has anybody took a serious look using economical and natural mangrove swamp plus some bunding to recover our beach to reduce the battling of the waves and high tide? Mangrove trees would be the favoured ecological approach. 8.4  The airport is a crucial public asset to be maintained at all cost and who would guarantee that after TAED? 8.5  The valuable endemic trees and any such trees lost in the process of developmment should be compensated based on a pre-determined value. 8.6  Nothing is best except with the natural habitat of TAB largely untouched since time immemorail to be re-structured with such a socalled eco project when it is not so “eco” as it is in its so far disclosed purpose and intention.  8.7  Where would TAEDSB secure its fund of RM45m annually to manage and maintain TAB after TAED to avoid another massive “eyesore”. 8.8  Why touch anything that has not been done before and don’t try to do it better than God in His sole domain on Earth for our own BREATH comes from God WITHOUT a doubt. [ will submit a signed copy later ] BREATH submission by Joshua Y. C. Kong, P. O. Box 11923, 88821 Kota Kinabalu. Chartered Accountant, Author, Founder Member of Sabah Environmental Protection Association, Social/political activist, poet, servant of God,    22/12/2014

excuse for TAED -Tg Aru great as water homestay hub

Tg Aru great as water homestay hub

Published on: Monday, December 15, 2014

Email to a friend     Printer Friendly

TANJUNG ARU: The water village here has great potential as a homestay hub, instead of some presently being thronged by migrant renters, as owners see the future potential of tourism to make more money with the Tanjung Aru Eco-Development (TAED) project attraction nearby. Tourism can do for Tanjung Aru to clear off undesirable problematic migrants what the booming industry did to clear out prostitution from some of Sabah's hotels like Kota Kinabalu's Sea View Hotel which was more of a dedicated brothel in the past. As hoteliers find that tourists fill rooms better than prostitutes and their clients, they prefer to straighten out their business.
The manager of Casuarina Hotel here testified in court recently that a house here that is the focus of a property cheating case trial, was also once rented by the hotel for business accommodation purpose. This reflects the potential of homes here for tourism accommodation.
The TAED is expected to boost the Tanjung Aru Lama and Baru village water house plots of land including those on Native Title from RM30,000 twenty years ago to more than four-fold to ten-fold depending on location and connection to land (if the government has no plans to acquire or resettle such home dwellers).
There are opportunities for water village home owners to rent rooms to tourists desirous of living like a local in a water village house without paying what tourists are paying to stay in high class resorts on Gaya Islands. Admittedly some necessary home renovations are needed for tourists' health and safety like proper sanitation and fire-fighting equipment.
Those who are more entrepreneurial could own their own approved boat with lifejackets to ferry tourists to the offshore islands or even to the city centre seaside shopping malls if permitted to land at available jetty instead of at Jesselton Point.
This also goes for those villagers off shore on Gaya Island like Kampung Gaya. For example, it is reported in the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants in Sabah Report in page 199 reports that Saimah binti Salam, the female village head of Kampung Gaya, said that more than 4,000 Bajau Laut and Suluk enjoy piped water and electricity supply which they could exploit to provide homestay to tourists that throng the backpackers lodges which sometimes do not have vacancies during peak seasons.
Datuk Edward Yong Oui Fah, when asked at a TAED briefing for politicians supposedly across the political divide in the recent pass, revealed that from his intimate knowledge of his constituents as the Tanjung Aru Assemblyman, most of the younger generations of Gaya Islanders prefer to move out elsewhere to live and work.
On saving and preserving free open access Tanjung Aru's Rugby field next to the Terminal Two of the Kota Kinabalu International Airport, Yong opined that he knew that only few wanted to use the field as it is for, and the future trend is to use facilities at the Likas Sports Complex. The site is slated for a convention centre hotel under the TAED.
The TAED is also expected to increase the desirability of old strata housing like the rental Tanjung Aru Low-Cost Flats for workers to the Waikiki Condominium units that were once an abandoned project, rescued by a banking group, and now saddled with an outstanding management fee arrears of some RM795,000 not collected by the property manager.
Datuk Yap Pak Leong, a Waikiki unit owner, was recently elected to the committee to form its first management corporation, which would be hard pressed to perform to manage the strata housing and collect the management fees, without any improvement to the state's strata housing laws, left in doldrums for years.
This will also affect investments decisions on TAED strata properties for sale in future if still no progress could be made since the promise of the last Attorney-General to move forward with the development of strata title laws and management standards as another year draws to a close.
Meanwhile, the year-end move to force Air Asia to shift from Terminal Two to Terminal One of the Kota Kinabalu International Airport (KKIA) could also force a developer of the piece of land between the Tanjung Aru Plaza and the river behind the Tanjung Aru Police Station to rethink its development design plan of building more shops with offices on top.
Initially it was proposed that the shops would serve as a food and beverage hub for airport travellers faced with the Spartan choice offerings of food and beverages at Terminal Two that the traffic parking congested Tanjung Aru Plaza, hotels and Tanjung Aru township could not offer to visitors pending the completion of the TAED retail joints as well as the slow progress in the Aeropod retail hub project that is expected to corner the bulk of KKIA transient eaters and shoppers.
With the TAED, the offices would be in greater demand in the shorter term pending the glut of offices and SOVOs by Aeropod project under S P Setia, as some people love working nearer to a world class development with park, beach, library and schools nearby.
The retail business environment in Tanjung Aru is falling as sluggish with the exception of low-pricing strategy by some provision stores with one specialising in wholesale supplies to outstation outlets, and notably a supermarket that draws shoppers from other locations for certain household items.

what kind of artificial standards better than the natural beach?

Tg Aru project to set new standards

Published on: Thursday, November 20, 2014

Email to a friend     Printer Friendly

KOTA KINABALU: The multi-billion ringgit Tanjung Aru Eco-Development project (TAED) aims to set new green building standards in sustainable development for Sabah. "This includes even making sure that the public view of beach from the approach road (Jalan Mat Salleh) is not obstructed," said TAED Executive Director, Datuk Victor Paul.
"I remember when Tengku Adlin wanted the design of the Likas Sports Complex many years ago to have a road facing straight at a sea view," recalled Victor at a briefing.
It is very important that the horizon sea view from the beach is not blocked from the main approach road. I am against any castle moat-like design that psychologically put barriers in people's mind that hinder their view of the horizon, sea and beach and sense of freedom to roam around the foreshore," stressed Ho recently.
Ho and Shareda President Francis Goh are private sector representatives of the State Central Board. Goh called for opportunities for local developers to participate in the development planned.
Property lawyer Christopher Chin, the legal advisor to Shareda and President of the Sabah Sailing Association unreservedly backs the project as it provides berthing facilities for yachts and amenities for youths to practise and excel in sailing.
"If you want to know whether Tanjung Aru Beach has changed and deteriorated over the years, I can tell so as I was there over many weekends for years for sailing activities.
From pulling up anchors I can tell you what is beneath the once abundant pristine sand is all mud and it smells," Chin told the gathering at the briefing.
Chin's testimony at the briefing with offer of proof contradicts the claim by activists that the beach has not undergone deterioration.
Paul said the design for the Fisherman's Wharf would help to protect the new beach from wave erosion just as well as the mangrove replanting at the other end of the beach to minimise pollution from the Petagas River.

where got approval and yet started with much things under the bridge.

page 50 of draft KKLP2020 - written statement only shows a smaller area of TAED.

Dialogue on 8 Nov 2014

Evaluation and Q&A on TAG2.0 Dialogue on Tanjung Aru Beach
After attending the TAG2.0 Dialogue at the Tanjung Aru Restaurant, it is now for the public represented by TAG2.0 to put forward more questions to the Sabah State Cabinet on the proposed TAED on Tanjung Aru Beach.
The dialogue was very well attended but the panel lacks the power to confirm any thing except to give us more information.
Mr Lionel Lau of TAEDSB did not mention anything about the reclamation of 444 acres of seashore and the sea.
It was Bernard Lai of WWWF who told us that the project would include 9 meter deep of the reclaimed sea hence likely increase the land level in seashore including the land where the ancient trees to something like 4 feet of soil killing all the existing old and irreplaceable valuable trees.
I hope the TAG2.0 would bring our resolutions of the Dialogue to the State Assembly on Tuesday and make a presentation to the Assemblymen.
Many more questions need to be asked as follows:-
1. Legal Status
1.1 What is the legal status of the TAED project as far as contracts with the various parties concerned.
1.2 As it was launched by the Prime Minister on 16 September, 2013, can the State Government cancel the TAED project without paying any compensation to those who might have signed some Agreements?
1.3 Has TAEDSB paid all the RM100m to the land owners with titles on the project site?
1.4 Is any part of the TAED project being offered in the market to potential buyers and stakeholders?
1.5 What is happening to a few hundred of acres of State land in project site?
1.6 Has the State Government via the land & survey department made any offers of the state land to TAEDSB?
2. Malaysian Airports Berhad
2.1 Has DHI consulted the Malaysian Airports Berhad as the KKIA is so near to the project site in its EIA report?
2.1.1 If DHI has consulted with MAB, what is the view of MAB?
2.1.2 As we do not know how water flows in the possibility of flash flood, has DHI consider that a valley would be in the runway as it is between the Kepayan hills and the upraised reclaimed TAED site? This is the worst scenario that there are 8 water outlets to the Tanjung Aru Beach including Sembulan and Petagas rivers at both ends of the project site. The dredged channel can be blocked at times and worst when high tide and very heavily rain occurs.
2.1.3 How can it be guaranteed that another minor useless project like TAED can destroy very valuable assets such Tanjung Aru Town and the Airport and who would pay for such losses when such a disaster can arise when TAED itself is a disaster?
2.1.4 What would happen if the TAED for whatever reason is abandoned, the KKIA would be badly affected.
2.1.5 Lionel told us that the abandoned property in Borneo Hotel could not find a buyer because of its close vicinity of the KKIA. So is there an intention that someone would prefer to move the KKIA elsewhere so that TAED would fetch more commercial value? Is it a ‘clever’ deal to find the reason to move the KKIA elsewhere once flooded by the development of TAED as it is with massive reclamation?
2.1.6 Is it in the plan of TAED that once KKIA is moved, what is there to stop the greedy people to grab that massive airport prime land?
3. Prince Philip Park
3.1 Lionel claimed that the Prince Philip Park would be doubled in size giving the message that the people would be benefited with that bigger area.
3.2 Prince Philip Park should be renamed Prince Philip City Park with a much bigger area including the existing site plus all the state land in second and third beach plus the former Government housing land and the School which should be about 300 acres out of the proposed 700 acres including the reclaimed sea land..
3.3 All the state land acquired by TAEDSB for TAED should be returned to the public domain.
3.4 Please don’t use PPP slightly increase in land area to justify the project to its original format.
4. Land compensation
4.1 How much of the RM100m of socalled compensation had been paid out now?
5. DBKK’s lack of fund to maintain the Prince Philip Park
5.1 I believe that DBKK had requested repeatedly for fund of say RM8m to upgrade the PPP, but was it declined?
5.2 I also am told that RM8m would be used to top up the inland of the seashore where the trees are standing to avoid flooding and likely up to 4 feet of soil. I believe all the old trees would die due to rotting of the roots once covered by 4 feet of soils
6. Maintenance annually with RM45m
6.1 Where would such RM45m come from with TAED if RM8m was not forthcoming?
6.2 Is it just an inducement to proceed with the project?
6.3 We want to see such guarantee of RM45m each year for the next ten years.
7. Public forums
7.1 After the launch of TAED on 16 September, 2013 by Prime Minister, the Government promised that many public forums would be conducted but such forums were simply non existent except the dialogue on 8th November, 2014.
7.2 Benoy- the Architect - was there to present a paper in Sutera Pacific Hotel on TAED for civil servants but I was only allowed in if I paid the expensive fees. That conference was titled “Liveable City Kota Kinabalu” without stating the organizers in December 2013.
7.3 Lets have a public forum in the City’s Merdeka Padang after a presentation by TAG2.0 in the Assembly sitting.
8. Planning and development Approval
8.1 Is Taed site zoned commercial in KKLP2020 draft?
8.2 KKLP2020 only showed a much smaller area for TAED, not 700 acres.
8.3 Has any TAED development plan submitted to DBKK for processing?
8.4 Has the Central Development Board consider any such proposed project?
8.5 Is the EIA report as submitted to Environment Protection Department [EPD] really as Draft?
8.6 If it is only draft copy, why call the public for views?
8.7 Why EPD never replies to submission of comments on the EIA report by DHI submitted by me and others?
9. TAED and TAEDSB
9.1 The Sabah Government must be transparent with this set up headed by a non civil servant if TAED and TAEDSB are both owned by the State.
9.2 Who is this Victor Paul - a civil servant heading State bodies?
9.3 Who had appointed Victor Paul?
9.4 Should not Victor Paul to be charged under any law including OSA for accepting a civil position?
10. Erosion and coastline degradation
10.1 Would TAED and TAEDSB secure accurate satellite pictures of the Tanjung Aru Beach coastline since 1980s from a company in Singapore to confirm that erosion has taken off the coastline of 50 meter for the past 40 or 50 years? The suspected or alleged erosion of the coatline of TAB was worst after Sinsuran area in KK was reclaimed in the 1980s due to the equilibrium adverse of the said coastline around Kota Kinabalu as waves are diverted to other areas in the west coast zone. It is believed the beach of Papar had been adversely eroded in the recent decades.
11. Other areas
11.1 If the State Government is not prepared to move this TAED project elsewhere in Sabah’s west coast, then it is strongly suspected that KKIA is the target for it to be moved elsewhere to give TAEDSB thousands of acres of prime land in KK. The previous proposal to move KKIA to Kimanis was aborted and again on public complaint.
11.2 Eyesore area in Tanjung Aru water village would be more suitable to have this “TAED” project and to upgrade Tanjung Aru Beach without an ecological disaster.
12. Guarantees before award of the construction of the TAED
12.1 Guarantee all the old irreplaceable valuable trees are not destroyed with a price tag on each tree to be marked.
12.2 Gazette to show the area of 300 acres to be for the Prince Philip City Park before the project starts.
12.3 Guarantee that the area around TAED be flood free and pay all damages should such arises.
12.4 The commercial areas should be limited to the areas as purchased by Land & Survey Department in compensation on behalf of TAEDSB.
12.5 Public access is FOC forever.
Prepared by Joshua Y. C. Kong 8th November, 2014

why promote TAED when it is not finalised and approved??

NGO- IPSOMplus-plus or IPSOM++

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1574530816111780/

This is the local NGO for the Institute of Public Security of Malaysia where every one can do something for ourselves now and into the future.

TAB in deep trouble

Even the Tanjung Aru Eco Development project is attempting to set the Terms of Reference for the Special Environmental Impact Assessment without having a finalised Masterplan. 

PRESS RELEASE: SEPA Warns of Breakdown on Environmental Safeguards in Sabah

Kota Kinabalu, 12^th October 2014: In a statement issued today, the Sabah Environmental Protection Association (SEPA) warns that the ‘rule of law’ in Sabah is being disregarded and projects that are unsustainable are being fast tracked without following proper procedures.

“The recent floods in Sabah are a result of breakdown of Sabah’s environmental safeguards as we have seen how blatantly unsustainable development is taking place,” said SEPA President, Lanash Thanda.

Defining "unsustainable developments” as development that occurs at the expense of future generations, SEPA said the State Government must ensure that safeguards placed in terms of laws, regulations and policies be adhered too to ensure that future generations do not suffer from mistakes made today.

“Irresponsible planning, non-adherence to due process, disregard for the laws, and environmental degradation through exploitation of resources generates waste and pollution. Such practices are not sustainable in the long term and it is our children and our grandchildren and great grandchildren that will have to bear the burden.  We cannot allow this to happen, we must do better and this is simple enough to do by following laws, regulations, policies and procedures that we already have, these are our environmental safeguards, we have them and we must use them,” said Lanash.

SEPA also stated that interference from interested parties to fast track and by pass environmental safeguards enshrined in legislation must stop and civil servants must be allowed to carry out there jobs without fear of political interference of any sort.

“In the past the people of Sabah could rely on the planning and environmental laws that are available in the State to eliminate environmental hazards, pollution, environmental impacts and corruption that would ultimately affect the people. However this system is now being eroded by being by-passed or fast tracked,” warned Lanash.

SEPA cited examples such as the 2,300 acres of the Aquaculture project in Pitas where pristine mangrove swamps were cleared before receiving approval for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as mandated by the State law. Another case in the city itself is the recent hill clearing/cutting for the new Court Complex on Jalan Sharrif Osman which is being carried out without following the necessary procedures. Even the Tanjung Aru Eco Development project is attempting to set the Terms of Reference for the Special Environmental Impact Assessment without having a finalised Masterplan.

“These three examples are only the tip of the iceberg and we cannot in good conscience allow such blatant disregard for the rule of law as ultimately it will affect the well being of communities and future development of Sabah,” stated Lanash.

SEPA points out that in the past year alone, the media have been filled with environmental incidences of flash floods, hill cutting, water issues, pollution, communities livelihoods affected, human-wildlife conflict.  All these factors in some way or another can be contributed to development that has been conducted unsustainably and is linked to the breakdown of these environmental safeguards.

“The rule of law and its due process has to be respected and followed by all, to ensure that these environmental safeguards are maintained to protect the integrity of Sabah. No one person, group, agency or organisation should be allowed to intervene and override the existing due process,” concluded Lanash.

TAED not corruption???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXRX4IJS-Zo

KK lacks proper planning

by Amy Dangin. Posted on September 18, 2014, Thursday

KOTA KINABALU: After visiting Kota Kinabalu in 2012, Alan Borer opined that despite the city’s various attractions, including the hospitality of its people and beauty of its natural surroundings, it lacks one thing – proper city planning.

Borer conveying his suggestion using the city map on a tourism brochure at the Borneo Post office yesterday.

But it was during his current visit back to the city that Borer, a 65-year-old retired accountant from Las Vegas, thought that whatever action that needs to be taken to ensure the city’s development does not drive it towards a point of no return, it is facing an urgency as of now.
“It seems to me that overbuilding and under-planning the required infrastructure is where the city planning is at its best,” Borer told The Borneo Post yesterday.
He pointed out that the development of new projects such as the expansion of KK Times Square, Oceanus Waterfront mall, and another high-end waterfront luxury condominium near Jesselton Point, will only turn the already crowded city and poor traffic flow from bad to worse, if the public transportation problems are not being tackled first, especially considering that the additional lifestyle buildings will attract more visitors and patrons, which will in turn worsen traffic conditions.
This, he said, can be helped by first taking care of the public transportation system.
Borer suggested that the existing Kota Kinabalu–Tenom–Kota Kinabalu railway system should be extended to the Wawasan Bus Terminal currently undergoing reconstruction.
“Extending the railroad from Tanjung Aru back into the downtown area to at least the new bus terminal, would increase ridership dramatically, allow for smooth bus connections and take car, taxi or some bus routes off already congested roads,” suggested Borer.
“Even as a foreign visitor, I know many people commute from Papar and Putatan to the city centre. So having three or four morning and another three or four late afternoon/evening Papar-Putatan-Kota Kinabalu shuttles would make a lot of sense,” he said.
Providing further suggestion, Borer said covered walkways could also be built to connect the Tanjung Aru railway station to the Kota Kinabalu International Airport (KKIA), for easier interchanging of transport for both local commuters and foreign visitors.
Adding on, Borer said that with other existing issues such as poor drainage that leads to regular flooding problem, building more concrete buildings will only increase water run-offs, other than more buildings needing more power generation, which will not help the prevailing power disruption problem in the state.
Borer also pointed out other issues relating to the city’s development which he felt were alarmingly short-sighted, such as the cutting down of trees along Gaya Street, as well as the upcoming mega project planned for Tanjung Aru beach.
“For example, have the authorities concerned thought of other options to tackle the bird problems in Gaya Street – such as spraying or netting – before taking the shortcut to wantonly chop off the trees – which took years to grow?” he said.
Coming from a city like Las Vegas, said Borer, his concern came from seeing his own hometown, as well as other towns that he had visited, take development towards the direction that could ruin the city.
“I love Kota Kinabalu and I have come here a couple of times. It is a beautiful place and I would hate to see it get to a point of no return.
“It is my hope that the people responsible for the city’s planning come to realise this and take the necessary action,” he said.

Read more: http://www.theborneopost.com/2014/09/18/kk-lacks-proper-planning/#ixzz3E391904s