Act now against evil to destroy TAB

Yes or No / Yes and No ???

DAP welcomes invite for public comment

Published on: Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Kota Kinabalu: DAP Sabah Likas Assemblyman Junz Wong said he supports the SEIA (Special Environmental Impact Assessment) for Tanjung Aru Beach as a necessary process and is willing to go along as long as the results are not a foregone conclusion.

Junz claimed there was high potential for conflict of interest to arise in the Tanjung Aru Beach Eco Development (TAED) based on his observation of the committees both named and unnamed in the draft Terms of Reference (TOR) for the TAED.
"It appears the same team of government officers will be sitting on the Government's Review Panel, DBKK, Central Board and so on," he said, Tuesday.
Wong, however, welcomed the invitation by the Director of Environmental Protection Department for the public to comment on the draft TOR that would be used to guide and also assess the SEIA of the TAED project. The Sabah Government needs to do everything according to its own laws and on top of that to strive and to achieve international best practices when given the opportunity, he said.
"If the Executive Director can talk of international standards in design and development we should expect international standards starting from the investigations and public consultation," he said. He did not believe the SEIA will result in an automatic ticket to development because a large proportion of Malaysians in Sabah have travelled overseas and many local and overseas graduates know exactly what they want to give to their next generations.
"Some things just cannot be replaced," he said, adding that DAP Pakatan as the alternative government would not stand in the way of development provided investigations have been done properly and when they can prove there is overwhelming benefit to be gained from the development.
"But there has to be proper checks and balances at every step of the way starting from the conceptualisation of the project, investigations, planning, design (and only should it get to this point) then in the development of the site itself."

Paper of conscience to EPD

Submission of Paper to Environment Protection Department on TAB under TAED.

By Joshua Y. C. Kong, Founder member of SEPA jknow823@gmail.com  16/7/14

1.  There are several major issues (environment, financial & legal) over the “eco” development and hardly addressed by the  DHI’s paper on SEIA of June 2014..

    1.1        Environment:-

The major item is the reclamation of the TAB of 444 acres out of 720 acres including a large part of the sea (possibly “unlimted” when started).

1.1.1       How much soil of quality be available and where do you get them?  Need to cut a small mountain or dredge from sea nearby to destroy further the coastline of KK?

1.1.2       Be reminded the small erosion had been worst in TAB since Sinsuran (1980s) and other part of KK city was reclaimed as the sea and waves find new equilibrium of the coastline.  [more reclamation of the port area is in progress]

1.1.3       How deep or high is the reclamation?  If 4 to 20 feet over 444 acre, a new valley would be created with the airport and tanjung aru township when it is a hill on the side of Kepayan.  So what happen when storms come to KK as Sabah is no longer the land below the wind, a disaster going to come to the TAB and the Airport & Tanjung Aru town?

1.1.4       DHI did not consult Malaysian Airport Berhad or the Airport authority in the context of possible floods and massive air pollution during the massive reclamation as light dust of the soil in dry spell could be carried by storm to the sky to hit at the flying aircrafts nearby.  Can anyone discount this possible disastrous event? The worst could happen when TAED is abandoned (possible complaints identified later) midway for various reasons and eyesores to tourists.

1.2             Financial

1.2.1       Eco project would be very costly as any fatal implementation of any area could spell disaster for rectification purposes. Where would be massive fund be available when the eco project is doom?  Even now, where is the RM1.5billion coming from, when the land is not sold yet?  Any delay for financial support means earlier doom to the eco project as proposed.  That is what we do not want to see.  The natural beach is free and need only little money to maintain it.  Don’t use an excuse of the present erosion and poor state of TAB to go to another bigger eco disaster when money stops coming.

1.3             Legal – locus standi

1.3.1       Whether we like it or not, who has the locus standi to destroy a natural beach of sandy beach once very white about 50 years ago.  The destruction of God’s creation is eternal.  The double legal aspect is that DBKK had neglected the TAB  with passive fault of the State Government and now more legal abuse is ongoing by the State Government directly.

1.3.2       The various applications of the legal manipulations on TAB into TAED is very much questioned and only a legal challenge by the public would stop the eco project when TAED/TAEDSB is not really an eco project but a commercial one.

1.3.3       All the legal documents should be made public.

2.        Guarantees for TAB as an eco project

2.1    So we want further guarantee that all the existing valuable old trees would be retained and any such tree to be given a price tag at the start of the eco project.  Any missing tree would be accordingly compensated and made payable to the relevant societies.  An audit would be done monthly for accountability.

2.2       We also want guarantee that the portion of shore reserve and Prince Philip Park be gazetteed for public access and usage at no costs back to KKCH before the project is implemented based on the approved master plan as suggested in SEIA report.  The portion of shore reserve should be as big as the state land now acquired by TAEDSB.  We cannot leave it to chance of official gazette post eco development as it is important we need to know the status of TAB.  It is already a public disgrace that Prince Philip Park and land designated to KKCH once gazetteed was de-gazetteed without public knowledge.  So what guarantee would there be if the new Gazette is not done prior to eco development of TAB.

2.3       DHI to consult the Airport Authority as how would TAED affect the air travel during and post eco development of TAED in term of heights, density of homes and building, and possible floods going in reverse from TAB.

2.3.1   A guarantee from TAEDSB that any flood/ incidence in the Airport and the area nearby be compensated fully by the promoters of the TAED as eco project.

2.4       With all the guarantees of any eventualities of new floods, old trees dying from reclamation, and immediate gazette of new shore reserves and Prince Philip Park, there will be the much desired assurance of the adverse consequences taking place to be fully taken care of.

2.5       Unless all the guarantees are sealed, it is better to forget TAB for TAED and go for the much more eye-sored Tanjung Aru Lama for eco development for tourism purposes.

3.  Conclusion:-

Eco project really mean ecologically justified.  If the eco project is going to create a bigger eco disaster, then TAB should be retained as it is, with some satisfactory maintenance.

Hope my paper would be seriously considered and can the EPD really ensure that the TAED is fully implemented to the letter of the eco project, otherwise it cannot proceed with the sweetened paper of TAEDSB. A stop order now is in order.

Joshua Y. C. Kong

TAB sold

Only 32% of TAED area to be sold for development

KOTA KINABALU: Only 32 per cent of the total 314 hectares of land under the Tanjung Aru Eco Development (TAED) master plan will be parcels sold for development, while the remaining 68 per cent consists of accessible, open and recreational spaces, including a proposed golf course.
Datuk Victor S Paul, executive director of Tanjung Aru Eco Development Sdn Bhd (TAEDSB), the master developer of this project, said there would only be 36 lots for sale in TAED whereby 25 per cent of the purchased lots space was required to be allocated for green space.
Paul said the TAEDSB board of directors took steps to ensure that the rehabilitated park and beach would be protected by passing it in the State Assembly so that no one in the future could touch it, even if a new Chief Minister came along.
He said this in a TAED briefing session for representatives from Sabah Housing and Property Developers Association (Shareda), Sabah Environmental Protection Association (Sepa), Malaysian Institute of Architects (PAM) and WWF Malaysia here yesterday.
Paul explained that parts of the development had to be sold because the proposed rejuvenation of Tanjung Aru Beach and Prince Philip Park would cost around RM1.5 billion while yearly maintenance cost was estimated at RM45 million.
He said the present Tanjung Aru Beach was an eyesore, underdeveloped and polluted with limited social, environmental and economic value.
“The quality of the beach has been deteriorating due to the increased fine content and pollutants from several drain-discharging sources and the Petagas River.
“At night, few people will venture to the beach or park as it is claimed that the area is poorly lit and unsafe,” he added.
Furthermore, seawater samples taken from several points along the First, Second and Third Beaches are found to contain between 500 and 1,485 of colony-forming unit (CFU) per 100 milliliters, which indicates high risk of illness transmission fecal count by the World Health Organization (WHO).
“It is the duty of the government to take some sort of action to stop all these, and that is what the government is trying to do,” he said.
The TAED master plan proposes to widen the beach to at least 50 metres at low tide (about five times wider) from nine metres now; and at least 100 metres at high tide (about four times wider) from 25 metres now.
To help protect the beach from both erosion as well as silt and pollution from the Petagas River, two new headland/breakwaters will be built as coastal landforms.
In addition, the Prince Philip Park will also be enlarged to twice its original size from 11.43 acres now to 27 acres.
Under the master plan, there will be a fishermen’s wharf, a marina, water channel and an international golf course.
The fishermen’s wharf is where the eateries, hotels and car parks will be as well as three bridges linking the wharf and the rainforests and beach.
In order to achieve low carbon emission, Paul said vehicles would not be allowed to enter the park. Instead, there will be electric buses, water taxi and proposed rapid transit.
The elderly and physically challenged individuals are also catered for with buggy services.
Over the long term, it is said that TAED will create new demand for local products from farmers, fishermen and craftsmen as well as open up business and employment opportunities for the people and youths of Sabah.
Paul believes that the TAED project would draw in over RM10 billion in foreign investments to the state, and assured that not a sen would go to the board members or him.
“None of us (board members) can take part in any of the tenders, nor our family members, whether for construction or purchase,” he said.
Present at the briefing were Minister of Special Tasks Datuk Teo Chee Kang, Assistant Minister to the Chief Minister Datuk Edward Yong Oui Fah, Shareda president Francis Goh, Sabah Parks Board of Trustees chairman Datuk Seri Tengku Dr Zainal Adlin bin Tengku Mahamood and City Hall director general Datuk Yeo Boon Hai.

Say NO to TAED.

This letter was sent to Daily Express and yet to appear, why?

updated letter:-

We need various guarantees from the TAEDSB.

Judging from the ‘shouting’ in the local press, it is sad to note that the voice of promoting the Tanjung Aru Eco Development (TAED) seems to be very loud and obviously lopsided.  The little voice of the support for nature with very little resources seems to have been drown by the already powerful parties all siding with the State now handed over the sort of eco project to a sort of private company known as TAEDSB.

This letter is without emotion and I personally do not have any vested interest in TAED and so it is an objective presentation of the “disaster” that may come about on the implementation of TAED in Tanjung Aru Beach.

The whole argument for the eco project since it was mooted by the Chief Minister of Sabah could have lost its focus when the nature in Tanjung Aru Beach is totally gone with the sort of eco development as proposed.  We all wonder who can rebuild or re-construct nature like the once the pristine white sandy beach with all the sentimental and iconic fiona in the area especially in the Prince Philip Park once gazetted as a natural park.  Now is it de-gazetted to be a commercial area and yet still considered an eco development?  How ecological can this proposed project be when a long stretch of white sandy beach be converted to a commercialized project to be a water front possibly used largely for rich people’s yachts playground? We have yet to view the proposed master plan by Benoy on the eco development. Once that happens, the ordinary folks would lose its prestigious and iconic sandy beach. I wonder how would the sandy beach be reconstructed when Victor Paul stated that TAB had lost much of its former beach for 50 years.  How can this TAED be presented to the people when KK city is themed as Nature Resort City when such eco project is devoid of nature?

I am told in 2010 that there was a proposal in KK City Hall that Prince Philip Park would need to be re-claimed possibly by 4 feet of soil to avoid seasonal or flash floods especially at high tide when heavy rain downpour occurred.   If that had materialized, I believe all the very old valued endemic trees  would die in the reclamation process making a nature’s disaster.  However, PPP continued to be neglected due to lack of fund from the Governments- State and Federal.

So now it is proposed that the same areas of more than 444 acres of existing low land  could be reclaimed to enable suitable commercial projects to proceed without the risk of floods.  If this really goes ahead, the area would be bare of those old trees.  Without those old trees, would any sane person still want to call this eco development project?  So don’t be deceived by the word “eco” in the project when it is a disaster ecologically.  Some may argue that the iconic trees would be untouched or retained and only some shrubs or little jungle may be removed for eco development of the 4 hotel and resorts.

More ecological disaster would emerge when a very big area of the sea would be reclaimed possibly as far as they want depending how greedy are the people behind this project.  Who can stop them if they violate the master plan as it is always too tempting to extend as much as they like outwards to the sea?

How can Victor Paul be considered capable to handle TAED as per  Selvaraja Somiah saying “This mammoth project will cost RM1.5 billion and Victor Paul, the most experience developer in Sabah who has an extremely good track record in construction, has been roped in” DE Forum 6^th July, 2014 when he had already expressed some bias and possibly inaccurate in the status of the present coastline.  He claimed that a great deal of the previous coastline in the 1960s  had been eroded but he did not know the reason of that erosion.  If he had known the real reason for the alleged massive erosion when it is not true, he should not advocate massive reclamation of the sea as such reclamation would further destroy the beach coastline of the west coast of Sabah.  The erosion of Tanjung Aru Beach had not been that bad as alleged by Victor as I was there in 1965.   Also the erosion of TAB is mainly due to the reclamation of K K beach/seashore from Standard Chartered bank to Shangrila Tanjung Aru Resort due to the new equilibrium of the post reclamation water level.

Also how would the RM1.5 billion (per Selvaraja) come from for the proposed “eco” development when it is not a commercial venture as claimed with large area still “available” to the public to have access to the “beach”?  The Chief Minister also claimed the TAB is not for sale.  Who is the “Father Christmas” here?  Or rather who is the “Robinhood” here? 

In John Lo’s letter to the Daily Express Forum titled “Tg Aru: Go for Win-win” (DE 22 June, 2014), I believe he did not compare like with like when he was referring TAB to other areas in the world such as Maldives and Seychelles.  John went on to say “A “win-win” scenario can be achieved quite easily.  It is long overdue for Sabah to use her bountiful and beautiful beaches to our economic advantage”.  I would think if TAB is to become a water seafront, where is the beautiful beach left? I would have thought a real “win-win-win” scenario would emerge if Tanjung Aru lama (much dilapidated area) be converted to a Resort and TAB be improved but still retain its natural beach.

We have seen how the make-belief of the great potential of TAED is yet to be substantiated mainly due to the lack of massive fund to support such a project and at worst it can be an abandoned project and a white elephant.  Is it true that dredging of the zone had already started and what is the risk thereof?

The Chief Minister had made several promises but none had been fulfilled.  Where is the public forum to face the consumers and environmentalists?  Has the DHI who did the Special Environmental Impact Assessment consulted the public especially the SEPA?  Was the eco project already at an advanced stage in its planning when it was made known of TAED to the public?  So it would seem unstoppable now and whatever now done is just cosmetic and to path the way to disaster.  Who can do better than God for His creation in nature?

TAED and Likas Bay  Project (now long abandoned) are quite similar in nature trying to maximize profit for the private owners but Likas Bay project could face the public in a marathon forum and from thereon it was dropped.  Likas Bay project was painted beautifully as usual but it failed to make guarantee that the reclamation would not disturb  the water table/level in the area as far back to Luyang if flood were to take place.  Likewise for the TAED, we do not know how the reclamation would actually impact the region including the nearby Kota Kinabalu International Airport so important for global tourism as far as flood is concerned.  Would the existing Tanjung Aru township be also a victim for flash flood?  I would not know from the SEIA Report how would the cross section of the reclamation be like when there is likely a restriction on the level of reclamation for the existing land where all the old trees are there.  Would there be a new valley of sort with the present low ground slightly raised up and meeting with uplifted seashore as reclaimed?  Does Benoy really know what is TAB being the first project in Sabah?

This answer for this question is still anybody guess.  With the massive proposed   reclamation of the sea, no one would ever know whether there is stability of the soil structure under the sea and the seashore. Should there be sink holes in the existing beach land, how would we deal with such calamity?  Not far from our shores, there are plenty of drilled oil fields, do we know what is the underground movement like?

So we want guarantees like as it was in the Likas Bay project that if flood did occur in the hinterland towards lowly Luyang, would Likas Bay project compensate the flood victims? Thank God, that project did not materialize upon much active and positive protests.  In the TAED case, it is the KKIA and Tanjung Aru Township.

So we want further guarantee that all the existing valuable old trees would be retained and any such tree to be given a price tag at the start of the eco project.  Any missing tree would be accordingly compensated and made payable to the relevant societies.  An audit would be done monthly for accountability.

We also want guarantee that the portion of shore reserve and Prince Philip Park be gazetteed for public access and usage at no costs back to KKCH before the project is implemented based on the approved master plan as suggested in SEIA report.  The portion of shore reserve should be as big as the state land now acquired by TAEDSB.  We cannot leave it to chance of official gazette post eco development as it is important we need to know the status of TAB.  It is already a public disgrace that Prince Philip Park and land designated to KKCH once gazetteed was de-gazetteed without public knowledge.  So what guarantee would there be if the new Gazette is not done prior to eco development of TAB.

Amongst the authorities not consulted by DHI is the Airport Authority as how would TAED affect the air travel during and post eco development of TAED in term of heights, density of homes and building, and possible floods going in reverse from TAB.

With all the guarantees of any eventualities of new floods, old trees dying from reclamation, and immediate gazette of new shore reserves and Prince Philip Park, there will be the much desired assurance of the adverse consequences taking place to be fully taken care of.

Unless all the guarantees are sealed, it is better to forget TAB for TAED and go for the much more eye-sored Tanjung Aru Lama for eco development for tourism purposes.

Another worry is that once the TAED project is started illegally not complying with regulations, it would be unstoppable once the project is started as it is a commercial project design to make money for the small stakeholders leaving the people at large in the lurch.  Who would be in the position to stop TAEDSB to comply with eco development in the actual implementation of the TAED?

Joshua Y. C. Kong, Founder member of SEPA   7/7/2014

TAED letter 2014

Judging from the ‘shouting’ in the local press, it is sad to note that the voice of promoting the Tanjung Aru Eco Development (TAED) seems to be very loud and obvious lopsided.  The little voice of the support for nature with very little resources seems to have been drown by the already powerful parties all siding with the State now handed over the sort of eco project to a sort of private company known as TAEDSB.

The whole argument for the eco project since it was mooted by the Chief Minister of Sabah could have lost its focus when the nature in Tanjung Aru Beach is totally gone with the sort of eco development as proposed.  We all wonder who can rebuild or re-construct nature like the once the pristine white sandy beach with all the sentimental and iconic Fiona in the area especially in the Prince Philip Park once gazetted as a natural park.  Now is it de-gazetted to be a commercial area and yet still considered an eco development?  How ecological can this proposed project be when a long stretch of white sandy beach  be converted to a commercialized project to be a water front possibly used largely for rich people’s yachts playground?  Once that happens, the ordinary folks would lose its prestigious and iconic sandy beach.  How can this TAED be presented to the people when KK city is themed as Nature Resort City when such eco project is devoid of nature?

I am told in 2010 that there was a proposal in KK City Hall that Prince Philip Park would need to be re-claimed possibly by 4 feet of soil to avoid seasonal or flash floods especially at high tide when heavy rain downpour occurred.   If  that had materialized, I believe all the very old valued endemic trees  would die in the reclamation process making a nature’s disaster.  However, PPP continued to be neglected due to lack of fund from the Governments- State and Federal.

So now it is proposed that the same areas of more than 400 acres of existing low land  could be reclaimed to enable suitable commercial projects to proceed without the risk of floods.  If this really goes ahead, the area would be bare of those old trees.  Without those old trees, would any sane person still want to call this eco development project?  So don’t be deceived by the word “eco” in the project when it is a disaster ecologically.

More ecological disaster would emerge when a very big area of the sea would be reclaimed possibly up to twenty feet and more depending how greedy are the people behind this project.

How can Victor Paul be considered capable to handle TAED as per  Selvaraja Somiah saying “This mammoth project will cost RM1.5 billion and Victor Paul, the most experience developer in Sabah who has an extremely good track record in construction, has been roped in” DE Forum 6^th July, 2014 when he had already expressed some bias and possibly inaccurate in the status of the present coastline.  He claimed that a great deal of the previous coastline in the 1960s  had been eroded but he did not know the reason of that erosion.  If he had known the real reason for the alleged massive erosion when it is not true, he should not advocate massive reclamation of the sea as such reclamation would further destroy the beach coastline of the west coast of Sabah.  The erosion of Tanjung Aru Beach had not been that bad as alleged by Victor as I was there in 1965.   Also the erosion of TAB is mainly due to the reclamation of K K beach/seashore from Standard Chartered bank to Shangrila Tanjung Aru Resort due to the new equilibrium of the post reclamation water level.

Also how would the RM1.5 billion (per Selvaraja) come from for the proposed “eco” development when it is not a commercial venture as claimed with large area still “available” to the public to have access to the “beach”?  The Chief Minister also claimed the TAB is not for sale.  Who is the “Father Christmas” here?  Or rather who is the “Robinhood” here? 

In John Lo’s letter to the Daily Express Forum titled “Tg Aru: Go for Win-win” (DE 22 June, 2014), I believe he did not compare like with like when he was referring TAB to other areas in the world such as Maldives and Seychelles.  John went on to say “A “win-win” scenario can be achieved quite easily.  It is long overdue for Sabah to use her bountiful and beautiful beaches to our economic advantage”.  I would think if TAB is to become a water seafront, where is the beautiful beach left? I would have thought a real “win-win-win” scenario would emerge if Tanjung Aru lama (much dilapidated area) be converted to a Resort and TAB be improved but still retain its natural beach.

We have seen how the make-belief of the great potential of TAED is yet to be substantiated mainly due to the lack of massive fund to support such a project and at worst it can be an abandoned project and a white elephant.  Is it true that dredging of the zone had already started and what is the risk thereof?

This answer for this question is still anybody guess.  With the massive proposed   reclamation of the sea, no one would ever know whether there is stability of the soil structure under the sea and the seashore. Should there be sink holes in the existing beach land, how would we deal with such calamity?  Not far from our shores, there are plenty of drilled oil fields, do we know what is the underground movement like?

Another worry is that once the TAED project is started illegally not complying with regulations, it would be unstoppable once the project is started as it is a commercial project design to make money for the small stakeholders leaving the people at large in the lurch.  Who would be in the position to stop TAEDSB to comply with eco development in the actual implementation of the TAED?

Joshua Y. C. Kong   7/7/2014

appeal for litigation fund of Rm2m

Litigation TAB against TAED by Jslm & UV

Attention members of JSLM and UV (to be revived) Appeal for Litigation Fund of RM2m

We all know what do JSLM and UV stand for here.

There may be thousands of members of JSLM and hundreds of UV members in Sabah.

I have been proposing here in facebook that we initiate litigation against those parties involved with excessive development of the only left pristine beach at the Tanjung Aru after the authorities under BN/UMNO had neglected the Tanjung Aru Beach (TAB) especially Prince Philip Park (PPP) which was created in 1959.

If we go through those records of maintenance of TAB since 1963, I think Musa Aman spent the most money in 2013 for the celebration of golden jubilee of Malaysia within a very short period.  It was incurred because he wanted the PM to launch his pet project of land grabbing of what he called Tanjung Aru Eco Development (TAED) in the disguise of rejuvenating the much neglected only good sandy beach left in Kota Kinabalu.  Musa Aman made some promises to the residents and the consumers plus the environmentalists that his intention was to improve the vast area for the public.

Those were Musa Aman’s words but soon other “animals” like TAEDSB appears on the scene which he claimed is a wholly own state Agency but headed but an outsider like Victor Paul who I believe has his own idea to enrich himself.   Can a non civil servant be the Chief Executive Officer of TAEDSB?  In this case TAEDSB is a private company linked by a tiny thread to the State Government.   Musa Aman must exhibit these records to prove what he and Victor said are relevant.

Other people have jump in band wagon of Musa Aman like President of SUCCC, YB Christina Liew and John Lo trying to paint a favourable picture of a public project when the modus operandi is to grab land.  In such process, we will lose our only pristine sandy beach left in Kota Kinabalu which is a very important historic heritage.

So far the signs are indicative of land grabbing of as much as 600 acres worth RM25billion.

We must stop this hideous project because we will only get a commercial area plus a water front after the massive reclamation of the sea of about 100 acres.  Nothing would be left for the ordinary people although the promise is that public would have access to the sea front but at what costs?

The promise of thousands of jobs is only good on papers as temptation for us to accept TAED and I believe the hotels and resorts could be white elephant within the next 5 years. 

There are people who are trying very hard to stop the TAED project but Musa Aman would not listen and would likely bull doze the plan as he had done so in other earlier projects against public interests.  I believe some of the concrete jungle projects in Kota Kinabalu would be abandoned once it is completed soon.

So I believe the only last resort to stop the TAED is by litigation which may cost any thing up to RM2m to complete the whole process including Appeals as there are multiple cases to be filed.

UV and JSLM members are urged to support the Litigation Fund raising drive as pet projects to conserve environment for this and future generations.  UV and JSLM members and leaders can appeal to the parent bodies for such fund to further our business in global tourism and trade and conservation of nature is of paramount importance to sustain good business practice.  I think the State can earn more with a good image by keeping TAB as pristine and as natural as it is to be a nature’s icon.  Once TAB is defaced by TAED, everything is gone.

Once UV and JSLM make an impact to stop the TAED project, we can then adopt this pristine beach as our icon in public venue.  Other global companies can also participate in the move to stop TAED in TAG 2.0.

Go for TAG 2.0 in litigation portion.

Joshua Y. C. Kong     6013-8394513