Bukit Antarabangsa: The Roots of Tragedy

The roots of tragedy
QUESTION TIMEBy P. GUNASEGARAM

Banning development on hillsides is the wrong prescription to prevent landslides. The right one is to ensure that standards are set and adhered to.

YOU don’t ban cars because of accidents. You make sure that people drive carefully, roads are built better, cars are safer and in good condition, people use safety belts and only qualified people drive, to mention just a few measures to reduce road deaths.

Short-circuiting any of these, or compromising on these standards, results in higher accident rates and a greater number of deaths and injuries when accidents happen. Like all public concerns, road safety has to be managed.

The recent hill-slope tragedy at Bukit Antarabangsa just outside Kuala Lumpur is yet another example of management of the process of property project assessment and development going awry.

Just as banning cars is not the solution to death on the roads, stopping hillside development is not the answer to the problem. It will only compound what is already a difficult situation in the country with regard to property projects given the looming economic crisis, which has made potential buyers rather cautious.

Lest we be accused of insensitivity and an uncaring attitude towards the plight of those killed, their families and those who are homeless because of the landslide, let us reassure them that concern for them and their worries is uppermost in our minds.

To arrive at the correct solution to problems requires emotions to be calmer and a proper perspective of the issues at hand. Otherwise, in the haste to appear conciliatory to those affected we can make decisions which will benefit no one at the end of the day and potentially harm others.

The problem in this case is not hillside development but the wrong kind of hillside development. The solution is not banning hillside development but ensuring that hillside development takes place under carefully controlled and supervised conditions to reduce the danger of landslips.
What are the prerequisites for that? First and foremost we need honest and competent local councils and authorities. Honesty is all important, because if the integrity of councillors and council heads can be compromised, the decision-making is going to be bad and in favour of the developer, no matter what.

Next is competence. That’s necessary at least at two levels. First, you need it to be able to establish what are the standards for hill-slope development. Next you need that to be able to monitor and establish for certain that developers adhere to the standards agreed upon.
For those who want to find the root cause of the tragedy, that’s a good place to start.
The questions to ask are these: Are our local authorities honest enough to turn down inducements that developers may offer and stick to professionalism and integrity? Are they competent enough to ensure that proper safety standards are set and adhered to?
If our answers are “no” to both those questions, then we should go about taking measure such that the answers are affirmative soonest. Honesty and integrity come first. If that can be established, competence can be bought.

There are enough consultants and experts on all kinds of construction methods and standards set in other parts of the world.

It will be quite straightforward, from a technical point of view, to set standards for hill-slope development. Perhaps this can be done federally and the standards made a requirement under the law for all local authorities to adhere to.

That will mean that all construction will be governed by a set of uniform standards no matter where in Malaysia the construction takes place.

On the second point of enforcement and supervision, one should merely send a thief to catch a thief. Developers have their own consultants to ensure projects are carried out to specifications. All the local authorities need to do is to have their own to ensure the same.

The cost of these consultants can then be charged back to the developers, who probably will pass the increased costs to the consumer. But such increased costs, in relation to the size of the
project, are likely to be small and constitute a form of insurance to house buyers.

These measures are basic and are a matter of routine in developed countries around the world – and to be sure there are many safe hillside development projects around the globe, too. Why they are not adopted here is a matter of some amount of conjecture, but not much, and it is possible for the reader to draw his own conclusions.

Even if all these measures are implemented, there is no absolute guarantee that landslides won’t take place. Just like car accidents can’t be completely stopped, we can’t completely stop landslides.

But without a doubt, we can take many measures to reduce their incidence, and the chances of them happening again, and cut the number of fatalities when they happen.

Which is what government, both local and federal, should be doing instead of theatrically thumping their chests and crying out in anguish each time such a thing happens.

P. Gunasegaram is managing editor of The Star. He thinks that corruption is responsible for a lot more ills than we sometimes realise.