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