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
No comments:
Post a Comment