Dear Chief Editor,
Daily Express
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 6th 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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment