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.