It is incumbent for all residents of this planet to be more conscious about preserving the environment for future generations. As it is, some scientists have already concluded that our planet is beyond salvage – past the tipping point. Nonetheless, it is part of the human condition to try and strive, especially for those of us living and working close to the Bukit Gasing Forest Reserve.
Archidex 09, the annual Malaysia Architecture, Interior Design & Building Exhibition, this year focused on environmentally sound practices and developments. Green Product Icons were proudly depicted by various exhibitors, and a new addition to this year’s forum was the Green Bulding Forum where the latest issues in green design and green building index were presented and discussed. The Green Building Index, Malaysia’s home-grown response to similar initiatives in the US, UK, Australia and Singapore, was also jointly launched by Architects Association and Association of Engineers. Participants thus learned and gained from views and insights shared on key issues and trends impacting the building community, especially from the panel of renowned green building experts speaking at the Green Building Forum.
It remains questionable if Green, having arrived in Malaysia, will stay. Foreign experts noted that Malaysians live extraordinarily wastefully when it comes to key resources such as water and fuel. And we do so because of the subsidies that have become entrenched in our way of life. Water, petrol, electricity are all ridiculously cheap in our country, whereas wages are low. Consequently, we are doubly incentivized AGAINST adopting new technologies which are friendly to the environment. These technologies unquestionably lead to savings in consumption, but the upfront cost of adoption are 1) too expensive for most of us and 2) will never be recovered based on the low costs of water and fuel in our country.
Skeptics have also accused developers and corporations of only being interested in the environment because it is better for business. Adoption of the emerging green vocabulary and acquisition of certifications such as the GBI and Greenmark arguably give business enterprises a competitive advantage. However, throughout history since the advent of capitalism, it is this commercial element which has pushed and advanced growth in our societies. Employment has become the means of survival for virtually everyone living on this planet in this era, and consequently, business enterprise and governmental intervention are the twin foundations on which societal change needs to be founded. Now all that remains if for us as individuals to care enough – as reflected in our willingness to pay to save the environment and to voice our concerns to those in authority.
Jointly contributed by K.C. Tan, H.S. Kok, G.S. Koh
31 July 2009
From: www.bukitgasing.webs.com
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
I used to think that Hishammuddin was a relatively intelligent fellow, in spite of comments by various friends to the contrary. Well, I was duly shocked when he waved around the keris in 2007 proclaiming Malay supremacy. With the new year barely begun, this scion of a proud aristocratic family is again demonstrating his idiocy by calling for demonstrations against the US and Israel. I'm not in support of what Israel is doing, but isn't it hypocritical to ban demonstrations by students when the issues are domestic (and against the ruling coalition), while simultaneously organizing it when it's about the affairs of other nations?!!
NST 2009/01/09
Gaza Under Siege: Ministry plans huge protest by schoolkids By : Regina Lee
PUTRAJAYA: Nearly all schoolchildren in the country will be mobilised to protest against the Gaza offensive by Israeli forces.
Education Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said about five million pupils and 360,765 teachers from more than 10,000 schools would be involved. "This is to create a wave of pressure for the Israelis to stop their violence and oppression of Palestinian civilians." He said the ministry would be working with the Information, Foreign, and Youth and Sports Ministries, as well as Peace Malaysia, to expand the campaign to a mega scale."When we protested against the US invasion in Iraq, we managed to get 200,000 people into Putra Stadium, Bukit Jalil.
"We are confident that youth leaders from political parties, including those in Pakatan Rakyat will join us in this fight against the Zionist regime," he said after his ministry's New Year gathering at Putrajaya International Convention Centre here yesterday.Hishammuddin said the directive was passed in the cabinet meeting on Wednesday. Asked on the danger of exposing children to such atrocities, the minister said: "When they grow up, they will have to face global issue like peace, environment and the economic crisis."He said he would be using the Unesco platform, of which he is an executive board member, to voice out Malaysia's concern over the Gaza crisis.
NST 2009/01/09
Gaza Under Siege: Ministry plans huge protest by schoolkids By : Regina Lee
PUTRAJAYA: Nearly all schoolchildren in the country will be mobilised to protest against the Gaza offensive by Israeli forces.
Education Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said about five million pupils and 360,765 teachers from more than 10,000 schools would be involved. "This is to create a wave of pressure for the Israelis to stop their violence and oppression of Palestinian civilians." He said the ministry would be working with the Information, Foreign, and Youth and Sports Ministries, as well as Peace Malaysia, to expand the campaign to a mega scale."When we protested against the US invasion in Iraq, we managed to get 200,000 people into Putra Stadium, Bukit Jalil.
"We are confident that youth leaders from political parties, including those in Pakatan Rakyat will join us in this fight against the Zionist regime," he said after his ministry's New Year gathering at Putrajaya International Convention Centre here yesterday.Hishammuddin said the directive was passed in the cabinet meeting on Wednesday. Asked on the danger of exposing children to such atrocities, the minister said: "When they grow up, they will have to face global issue like peace, environment and the economic crisis."He said he would be using the Unesco platform, of which he is an executive board member, to voice out Malaysia's concern over the Gaza crisis.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Auld Lang Syne
I believe that history repeats itself. So, as we begin a new year, it's good to reflect on not just recent history, but history stretching back.
Social contract (Malaysia)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The social contract in Malaysia refers to the agreement made by the country's founding fathers in the Constitution. The social contract usually refers to a quid pro quo trade-off through Articles 14–18 of the Constitution, pertaining to the granting of citizenship to the non-Malay people of Malaysia, and Article 153, which grants the Malays special rights and privileges. The term has also been used occasionally to refer to other portions of the Constitution, such as the Article stating that Malaysia is a secular state.
In its typical context related to race relations, the social contract has been heavily criticised by many, including politicians from the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, who contend that constant harping on the non-Malays' debt to the Malays for citizenship has alienated them from the country. Such criticisms have met with opposition from the Malay media and the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the largest political party in Barisan Nasional. Many Malays, typically from UMNO, have used the social contract to defend the principle of Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy).
Contractual terms
The Constitution does not explicitly refer to a "social contract" (in terms of citizenship rights and privileges), and no act of law or document has ever fully set out the social contract's terms. Its defenders often refer to the Constitution as setting out the social contract, and the Malaysian founding fathers having agreed to it, although no reference to a "social contract" appears in the Constitution. Instead, the social contract is typically taken to mean a quid pro quo agreement that provides the non-Malay and other non-indigenous peoples of Malaysia (mostly the Malaysian Chinese and Malaysian Indian) with citizenship, in return for their granting special privileges to the Malays and indigenous people of Malaysia, collectively referred to as the Bumiputra (sons of the soil).[1]
A higher education Malaysian studies textbook conforming to the government syllabus states: "Since the Malay leaders agreed to relax the conditions for citizenship, the leaders of the Chinese and Indian communities accepted the special position of the Malays as indigenous people of Malaya. With the establishment of Malaysia, the special position status was extended to include the indigenous communities of Sabah and Sarawak."[2]
Another description of the social contract declares it to be an agreement that "Malay entitlement to political and administrative authority should be accepted unchallenged, at least for the time being, in return for non-interference in Chinese control of the economy".[3]
The Constitution explicitly grants the Bumiputra reservations of land, quotas in the civil service, public scholarships and public education, quotas for trade licences, and the permission to monopolise certain industries if the government permits. In reality, however, especially after the advent of the Malaysian New Economic Policy (NEP) due to the racial riots of the May 13 Incident which occurred in 1969 when Malays held only 4% of the Malaysian economy, Bumiputra privileges have extended to other areas; quotas are set for Bumiputra equity in publicly traded corporations, and discounts for them on automobiles and real estate ranging from 5% to 15% are mandated.
Social contract (Malaysia)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The social contract in Malaysia refers to the agreement made by the country's founding fathers in the Constitution. The social contract usually refers to a quid pro quo trade-off through Articles 14–18 of the Constitution, pertaining to the granting of citizenship to the non-Malay people of Malaysia, and Article 153, which grants the Malays special rights and privileges. The term has also been used occasionally to refer to other portions of the Constitution, such as the Article stating that Malaysia is a secular state.
In its typical context related to race relations, the social contract has been heavily criticised by many, including politicians from the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, who contend that constant harping on the non-Malays' debt to the Malays for citizenship has alienated them from the country. Such criticisms have met with opposition from the Malay media and the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the largest political party in Barisan Nasional. Many Malays, typically from UMNO, have used the social contract to defend the principle of Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy).
Contractual terms
The Constitution does not explicitly refer to a "social contract" (in terms of citizenship rights and privileges), and no act of law or document has ever fully set out the social contract's terms. Its defenders often refer to the Constitution as setting out the social contract, and the Malaysian founding fathers having agreed to it, although no reference to a "social contract" appears in the Constitution. Instead, the social contract is typically taken to mean a quid pro quo agreement that provides the non-Malay and other non-indigenous peoples of Malaysia (mostly the Malaysian Chinese and Malaysian Indian) with citizenship, in return for their granting special privileges to the Malays and indigenous people of Malaysia, collectively referred to as the Bumiputra (sons of the soil).[1]
A higher education Malaysian studies textbook conforming to the government syllabus states: "Since the Malay leaders agreed to relax the conditions for citizenship, the leaders of the Chinese and Indian communities accepted the special position of the Malays as indigenous people of Malaya. With the establishment of Malaysia, the special position status was extended to include the indigenous communities of Sabah and Sarawak."[2]
Another description of the social contract declares it to be an agreement that "Malay entitlement to political and administrative authority should be accepted unchallenged, at least for the time being, in return for non-interference in Chinese control of the economy".[3]
The Constitution explicitly grants the Bumiputra reservations of land, quotas in the civil service, public scholarships and public education, quotas for trade licences, and the permission to monopolise certain industries if the government permits. In reality, however, especially after the advent of the Malaysian New Economic Policy (NEP) due to the racial riots of the May 13 Incident which occurred in 1969 when Malays held only 4% of the Malaysian economy, Bumiputra privileges have extended to other areas; quotas are set for Bumiputra equity in publicly traded corporations, and discounts for them on automobiles and real estate ranging from 5% to 15% are mandated.
The Constitution also included elements of Malay tradition as part of the Malaysian national identity. The Malay rulers were preserved, with the head of state, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, drawn from their ranks. Islam would be the national religion, and the Malay language would be the national language. These provisions, along with the economic privileges accorded by Article 153 of the Constitution, made up one half of the bargain, and have been referred to as the Malay Agenda. The nature of these provisions is disputed; although many Malays refer to them as "rights" – a term common in UMNO rhetoric – critics have argued that the Constitution never refers to special rights for the Malays:
“ There is no such thing as a racial "right" to be given special treatment. And that is not me being argumentative, it's the Constitution. You won't find "Malay rights" in the supreme law of our land, instead, you will find terms such as "special position" of Malays. The difference is more than semantics. A right implies something inalienable. A privilege on the other hand is a benefit, presumably given to those who need it.”
Such critics have used this basis to argue that the social contract was meant "to protect the Malays from being overwhelmed economically, administratively and politically from the immigrant ethnic groups of the time", instead of granting particular special rights to the Malays.[4]
Some suggest that this bias towards Malays in education and politics is, in part, a response to the ability of the Malaysian Chinese to secure most of the country's wealth. The Indian Malaysians, as with the Indian Singaporeans, can make a case for being those that lose out the most, although this may be disputed.[citation needed]
The government did roll back the quota system for entry to public universities in 2003 and introduced a policy of "meritocracy". However, this new system was widely criticised by the non-Bumiputras as benefiting the Bumiputras by streaming them into a matriculation programme that featured relatively easy coursework while the non-Bumiputras were forced to sit for the Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM, or Malaysia Higher School Certificate). Although in theory non-Bumiputras may enter the matriculation stream, and Bumiputras may sit for the STPM, this rarely occurs in reality. Meritocracy was also criticised by some quarters in UMNO as being discriminatory, as it caused the rural and less-prepared Malays to fall behind in university entrance rates.
The Reid Commission which prepared the framework for the Constitution stated in its report that Article 153, the backbone of the social contract, would be temporary only, and recommended that it be reviewed 15 years after independence. The Commission also said that the article and its provisions would only be necessary to avoid sudden unfair disadvantage to the Malays in competing with other members of Malaysian society, and that the privileges accorded the Malays by the article should be gradually reduced and eventually eliminated. Due to the May 13 Incident, after which a state of emergency was declared, however, 1972, the year that Article 153 was due to be reviewed, passed without incident.
According to the social contract's proponents, in return for the enactment of these originally temporary provisions, non-Malay Malaysians are accorded citizenship under Chapter 1 of Part III of the Constitution. Except for the Bumiputra privileges, non-Bumiputras are otherwise generally regarded as equal to their Bumiputra counterparts, and are accorded all the rights of citizenship as under Part II of the Constitution. In recent years, some have sought to provide Malay citizens with more political rights as per the ketuanan Melayu philosophy. However, most of these ketuanan Melayu proponents argue that their additional rights are already written as law and thus only seek to "defend" them from their opponents.
When he assumed the Presidency of UMNO, Tunku Abdul Rahman (later the first Prime Minister of Malaysia) stated that "...when we (the Malays) fought against the Malayan Union (which upset the position of the Malays' rights) the others took no part in it because they said this is purely a Malay concern, and not theirs. They also indicate that they owe their loyalty to their countries of origin, and for that reason they oppose the Barnes Report to make Malay the national language. If we were to hand over the Malays to these so-called Malayans when their nationality has not been defined there will be a lot of problems ahead of us." However, he continued that "For those who love and feel they owe undivided loyalty to this country, we will welcome them as Malayans. They must truly be Malayans, and they will have the same rights and privileges as the Malays." [5]
[edit] Early criticism
Article 153, and thus by extension the social contract, has been a source of controversy since the early days of Malaysia. Singaporean politician Lee Kuan Yew (later the first Prime Minister of Singapore) of the People's Action Party (PAP; its Malaysian branch would later become the Democratic Action Party or DAP) publicly questioned the need for Article 153 in Parliament, and called for a "Malaysian Malaysia". Questioning the social contract, Lee stated: "According to history, Malays began to migrate to Malaysia in noticeable numbers only about 700 years ago. Of the 39 percent Malays in Malaysia today, about one-third are comparatively new immigrants like the secretary-general of UMNO, Dato' Syed Ja'afar Albar, who came to Malaya from Indonesia just before the war at the age of more than thirty. Therefore it is wrong and illogical for a particular racial group to think that they are more justified to be called Malaysians and that the others can become Malaysian only through their favour."[6]
Lee criticised the government's policies by stating that "[t]hey, the Malay, have the right as Malaysian citizens to go up to the level of training and education that the more competitive societies, the non-Malay society, has produced. That is what must be done, isn't it? Not to feed them with this obscurantist doctrine that all they have got to do is to get Malay rights for the few special Malays and their problem has been resolved." [7] He also lamented, "Malaysia — to whom does it belong? To Malaysians. But who are Malaysians? I hope I am, Mr Speaker, Sir. But sometimes, sitting in this chamber, I doubt whether I am allowed to be a Malaysian."Lee's statements upset many, especially politicians from the Alliance, Barisan Nasional's predecessor. Then Finance Minister Tan Siew Sin of the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) called Lee the "greatest, disruptive force in the entire history of Malaysia and Malaya." Tunku Abdul Rahman, the first Prime Minister of Malaysia, considered Lee to be too extremist in his views, while other UMNO politicians thought Lee was simply taking advantage of the situation to pander to the Malaysian Chinese.
PAP-UMNO relations were chilled further by the PAP running several candidates in elections on the Malay peninsula, with UMNO retaliating by trying to run candidates on its ticket in Singapore. Eventually, the Tunku decided to ask Singapore, through Lee and some of his closest confidantes, to secede from Malaysia. Eventually, Lee agreed to do so, and Singapore became an independent nation in 1965. The Constitution of Singapore contains an article, Article 152, that names the Malays as "indigenous people" of Singapore and therefore requiring special safeguarding of their rights and privileges as such. However, the article specifies no policies for such safeguarding, and no reference to a "social contract" has ever been made by the political establishment in Singapore.
[edit] Present debate
In 2005, the social contract was brought up by Lim Keng Yaik of the Gerakan party in Barisan Nasional. Lim, a Minister in the government, asked for a re-examination of the social contract so that a "Bangsa Malaysia" (literally Malay for a Malaysian race or Malaysian nation) could be achieved. Lim was severely criticised by many Malay politicians, including Khairy Jamaluddin who is Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's son-in-law and Deputy Chairman of the UMNO Youth wing, and Ahmad Shabery Cheek, a prominent Malay Member of Parliament from the state of Terengganu. The Malay press (most of which is owned by UMNO) also ran articles condemning the questioning of the social contract. Lim was adamant, asking in an interview "How do you expect non-Malays to pour their hearts and souls into the country, and to one day die for it if you keep harping on this? Flag-waving and singing the Negaraku (the national anthem) are rituals, while true love for the nation lies in the heart."
A year earlier, Abdullah had given a speech where he mentioned the most "significant aspect" of the social contract as "the agreement by the indigenous peoples to grant citizenship to the immigrant Chinese and Indians". However, Abdullah went on to state that "the character of the nation" changed to "one that Chinese and Indian citizens could also call their own". However, the speech went largely unremarked.
In the end, Lim stated that the Malay press had blown his comments out of proportion and misquoted him. The issue ended with UMNO Youth chief and Education Minister Hishamuddin Hussein warning people not to "bring up the issue again as it has been agreed upon, appreciated, understood and endorsed by the Constitution."
Earlier that year, Hishamuddin had waved the keris (traditional Malay dagger) at the UMNO Annual General Meeting, warning non-Malays not to threaten "Malay rights" and to question the social contract. This was applauded by the UMNO delegates, but widely ridiculed in the Malaysian blogosphere.
Other politicians, mostly from opposition parties, have also criticised the NEP and its provisions, but refrained from directly criticising the social contract or Article 153 of the Constitution. Former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim of the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) promised he would roll back the NEP if he ever gained power, and many from the Democratic Action Party (DAP) have also spoken out against the NEP. They criticised the NEP as benefiting only a small portion of Malays, mostly well-connected and urban, while ignoring the rural and poor Malays, and noted that the NEP's avowed goal was to give the Malays a 30% share in the country's economic equity, regardless of whether only a few or many Malays held this share. The DAP has been particular in arguing it does not question Article 153 or the social contract, but merely seeks to abolish inequitable policies such as the NEP.Article 10 (4) of the Constitution permits the government to ban the questioning of Article 153, and thus the social contract; indeed, the Sedition Act does illegalise such questioning. The Internal Security Act (ISA) also permits the government to detain anybody it desires for practically an infinite period of time, and many, including politicians from the DAP such as Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh have been held under the ISA; it is widely believed this was because of their vehement criticism of Malay privileges.
More recently, some commentators have remarked on younger Malaysians chafing at the terms of the social contract. One wrote that "half a century on, younger non-Malays especially feel they were not parties to deals and contracts (at the time of independence) and should not be beholden to them."[8] In 2006, several non-Malay parties in the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition called for a reexamination of the social contract; Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's refusal to do so reportedly triggered "much consternation". Abdullah was quoted in the Malay media as saying: "If we change this balance and if we are forced to meet all over again on the rights of every group, it will not be the same as now. It would be far from satisfactory. Whatever the new formula, it will not succeed because the old formula is enough, is already maximum. As everyone had agreed to this before, why do we want to disturb this and meet again?"[9]
That year, at the UMNO General Assembly, several delegates criticised other members of the government coalition for criticising the social contract and ketuanan Melayu. One stated that "If they question our rights, then we should question theirs. So far we have not heard the Malays questioning their right to citizenship when they came in droves from other countries."[10] Others argued that the Bumiputra communities continued to lag behind the rest of the country economically, and called for stronger measures in line with the social contract.[11] One delegate, Hashim Suboh, made headlines when he asked Hishammuddin, who had brandished the kris again, "Datuk Hisham has unsheathed his keris, waved his keris, kissed his keris. We want to ask Datuk Hisham when is he going to use it?" Hashim said that "force must be used against those who refused to abide by the social contract", provoking criticism from the DAP, which accused him of sedition.[12]In response to what it termed "[t]he veiled threat of violence ... made explicit during last year's UMNO conference", The Economist criticised the social contract, calling it "absurd and unjust to tell the children of families that have lived in Malaysia for generations that, in effect, they are lucky not to be deported and will have to put up with second-class treatment for the rest of their lives, in the name of 'racial harmony'", and called policies based on the social contract "official racism".[13]
Usage in other contexts
The social contract has also occasionally been referred to in a context other than that involving race relations. In the 2004 general election, the DAP ran on a platform of defending the "social contract" by combatting an Islamic theocracy, which the Constitution forbids, but was endorsed by former Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad, Lim Keng Yaik and by PAS, the second-largest Malay-based political party in the country.
Friday, December 12, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Thank you, Zaid!
Once in a while, a voice of sanity surfaces:
Zaid: Chinese Malaysians Have Made Great Sacrifices
http://www.mysinchew.com/node/16969
KUALA LUMPUR: Former minister in the prime minister's department Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said true Malays need not be afraid, or feel lack of a sense of security.
"Take myself as an example. I'm a pure Malay, but I have a sense of security. I feel proud of my own race and culture."
However he said, the problem is that many people do not understand or respect history. Indians, Chinese and Malays have been participating in the nation-building process since a few centuries ago. The Indians used to work in the estates, while the Chinese and Indonesians have all made valuable contributions and sacrifices for the nation too. But we have all forgotten this.
Zaid Ibrahim quit his Cabinet post because he did not agree to the government's decision of detaining civilians under the Internal Security Act (ISA).
He said during an exclusive interview with Sin Chew Daily that the Chinese used to work here as miners, and they made great sacrifices during the confrontation with the communists, adding that we must understand history and what they have done for the nation.
"The rights of every individual must be respected and taken care of by everyone else."
"We are only talking about Malaysia as the 19th largest export country in the world, and that we have the twin towers and are a developed country... Do you think we have done all this ourselves? You're wrong. This achievement has been made after so many people from different ethnic groups have sacrificed for the nation.
"We are not talking about the positive things, but instead discussing how we should get worried because the Chinese have opened how many more new stores here.
"As a matter of fact, the first feeling we should have is not about worry. We should work harder to keep up with them instead.
"I've never been worried about the Chinese. In my legal firm, my partner is a Chinese, and we trust each other. Do you think I have built up my success all on my own?
"I'm not scared that the Chinese are smart, for I'm also very smart. I'm not scared that the Chinese are hard working, for I'm also very hard working. We have bad guys in every ethnic group, and you're cheated simply because you're not smart enough. We must educate young Malaysians to look at things from a positive perspective."
Zaid said certain people have kept on mentioning May 13 to blackmail the people. However he felt that given our current situation, this thing would never happen again.
"I am thinking, for a better future, all Malaysians should stand up and speak out bravely. The Chinese must defend the rights of the Malays, and the Malays must also defend the rights of the Chinese. Everyone must be properly taken care of here."
He felt that we should not rely on a single political party to take care of a particular community. It should be that the rights of every individual must be respected and taken care of by everyone else.
(By HOU YALUN/Translated by DOMINIC LOH/Sin Chew Daily)
Zaid: Chinese Malaysians Have Made Great Sacrifices
http://www.mysinchew.com/node/16969
KUALA LUMPUR: Former minister in the prime minister's department Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said true Malays need not be afraid, or feel lack of a sense of security.
"Take myself as an example. I'm a pure Malay, but I have a sense of security. I feel proud of my own race and culture."
However he said, the problem is that many people do not understand or respect history. Indians, Chinese and Malays have been participating in the nation-building process since a few centuries ago. The Indians used to work in the estates, while the Chinese and Indonesians have all made valuable contributions and sacrifices for the nation too. But we have all forgotten this.
Zaid Ibrahim quit his Cabinet post because he did not agree to the government's decision of detaining civilians under the Internal Security Act (ISA).
He said during an exclusive interview with Sin Chew Daily that the Chinese used to work here as miners, and they made great sacrifices during the confrontation with the communists, adding that we must understand history and what they have done for the nation.
"The rights of every individual must be respected and taken care of by everyone else."
"We are only talking about Malaysia as the 19th largest export country in the world, and that we have the twin towers and are a developed country... Do you think we have done all this ourselves? You're wrong. This achievement has been made after so many people from different ethnic groups have sacrificed for the nation.
"We are not talking about the positive things, but instead discussing how we should get worried because the Chinese have opened how many more new stores here.
"As a matter of fact, the first feeling we should have is not about worry. We should work harder to keep up with them instead.
"I've never been worried about the Chinese. In my legal firm, my partner is a Chinese, and we trust each other. Do you think I have built up my success all on my own?
"I'm not scared that the Chinese are smart, for I'm also very smart. I'm not scared that the Chinese are hard working, for I'm also very hard working. We have bad guys in every ethnic group, and you're cheated simply because you're not smart enough. We must educate young Malaysians to look at things from a positive perspective."
Zaid said certain people have kept on mentioning May 13 to blackmail the people. However he felt that given our current situation, this thing would never happen again.
"I am thinking, for a better future, all Malaysians should stand up and speak out bravely. The Chinese must defend the rights of the Malays, and the Malays must also defend the rights of the Chinese. Everyone must be properly taken care of here."
He felt that we should not rely on a single political party to take care of a particular community. It should be that the rights of every individual must be respected and taken care of by everyone else.
(By HOU YALUN/Translated by DOMINIC LOH/Sin Chew Daily)
Friday, November 28, 2008
The Backyard Environmentalists of Petaling Jaya
It’s fantastic how residents associations have stood up in 2008 to make known their grouses, especially about the poor performance of the Klang Valley’s various municipal authorities. Banding together into one of many Joint Action Committees, Petaling Jaya ("PJ") and Kuala Lumpur ("KL") citizens in particular have conducted public demonstrations, filed suits and led the way in exploiting the media and local press to further their causes, ranging from complaints about out of control advertising billboards, poor sanitation and traffic woes to broader issues such as environmental protection. It goes to prove that the best way to get asses off couches is to bring the cause into our backyards.
The ongoing saga of Bukit Gasing in Kuala Lumpur is a classic example of the power of NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”) activism. Back in 2006, residents living in the foothills of what used to be colonial rubber estates, got wind that development was being contemplated by owners of undeveloped portions of the area, which these residents have been enjoying as a green backdrop for several years.
For those who aren’t aware of the situation, a group of PJ residents living in the foothills of Gasing Hill conducted an effective campaign in 20006/2007 to mislead members of a very gullible Malaysian press corps into believing that a forest reserve was about to be developed by unscrupulous developers in cahoots with corrupt city officials. By recasting their neighbour as a mysterious agent of politicos bent on the destruction of forests, these residents managed to garner a huge swell of public support, with its calls for demonstrations drawing participants even from other towns.
It subsequently surfaced that the so-called forest reserve was actually overgrown residential lots with corresponding titles dating back to the 1970’s, before anyone came to live in the area. In effect, these residents were trying to deprive their neighbours of their right to build after they the present residents had themselves happily bought homes in the “forest reserve”. It’s a pity that the same amount of energy isn’t being applied to the true destruction of rainforests in rural Peninsular Malaysia: simple math would suggest that saving thousands of acres of virgin jungle will do the world a lot more good than defending 38 acres of a dilapidated rubber estate in the city. But therein lies the rub: those thousands of acres aren’t in the backyards of these activists.
The ongoing saga of Bukit Gasing in Kuala Lumpur is a classic example of the power of NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”) activism. Back in 2006, residents living in the foothills of what used to be colonial rubber estates, got wind that development was being contemplated by owners of undeveloped portions of the area, which these residents have been enjoying as a green backdrop for several years.
For those who aren’t aware of the situation, a group of PJ residents living in the foothills of Gasing Hill conducted an effective campaign in 20006/2007 to mislead members of a very gullible Malaysian press corps into believing that a forest reserve was about to be developed by unscrupulous developers in cahoots with corrupt city officials. By recasting their neighbour as a mysterious agent of politicos bent on the destruction of forests, these residents managed to garner a huge swell of public support, with its calls for demonstrations drawing participants even from other towns.
It subsequently surfaced that the so-called forest reserve was actually overgrown residential lots with corresponding titles dating back to the 1970’s, before anyone came to live in the area. In effect, these residents were trying to deprive their neighbours of their right to build after they the present residents had themselves happily bought homes in the “forest reserve”. It’s a pity that the same amount of energy isn’t being applied to the true destruction of rainforests in rural Peninsular Malaysia: simple math would suggest that saving thousands of acres of virgin jungle will do the world a lot more good than defending 38 acres of a dilapidated rubber estate in the city. But therein lies the rub: those thousands of acres aren’t in the backyards of these activists.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Hypocrisy at the Zoo
The Singapore Zoo recently unveiled a new show “The Rainforest Fights Back”, in which a fat and gaudily bejewelled man claiming to be a land developer attempts to “cut up” precious tracts of rainforest to be developed into a hotel, resort and various other projects. In proceeding to the targeted site deep in the forest, he gets lost but is able to hoodwink an innocent native girl to guide him in excahnge for a bag of candies. She is of course dismayed when his intentions to transform her forest become known but luckily, the animals of the forest get into the act, and repel him by throwing nuts at him.
Perhaps the Zoo ought to have consulted with Capitaland, presently the largest developer in South East Asia, (and a major sponsor) of the Zoo when the show was being planned. Had they done so, they would have more accurately portrayed the villainous developer as a highly educated, expensively bespoked graduate of NUS with connections to the Singapore government instead of the uncouth bumbling red-neck portrayed on stage. I don’t think any self respecting developer would be caught dead either dressed like or behaving like that actor.
On a general level, it’s been perpetually interesting to observe how conservationists generally come from highly developed nations which have already chopped down their own forests. Statistically, more forests are actually cut down for farmland, timber, dams and subterraneous natural resources rather than for development. However, it probably wouldn’t resonate as well with a gullible audience to be presented with the notion that forests are being cut down so that they can get hamburgers from their fast food outlets, furniture for their apartments, and fuel for the powerplants generating electricity for their TV’s and computers. Nor would it be politically correct to suggest that the natives are themselves burning rainforests in order to create farmland, build new villages and in general eke out a better life for themselves. It is indeed more convenient to appeal to this affluent audience’s sense of righteous indignation by portraying that forests are being destroyed for luxurious holiday destinations which would be beyond even their ability to pay for.
The test of true concern which citizens of developed nations have time and again failed at is found in their unwillingness to provide sustained support for those whose lot in this world is pathetic. We’re ok when it comes to occasionally giving a donation, but we balk at the notion of providing regularly to undeveloped nations. And don’t even think about asking us to drive around less, or not switch on our air-conditioners so often, or eat less beef, or shop less at our malls.
Incidentally, the Singapore Zoo is great. Everyone with the opportunity should pay it a visit.
Perhaps the Zoo ought to have consulted with Capitaland, presently the largest developer in South East Asia, (and a major sponsor) of the Zoo when the show was being planned. Had they done so, they would have more accurately portrayed the villainous developer as a highly educated, expensively bespoked graduate of NUS with connections to the Singapore government instead of the uncouth bumbling red-neck portrayed on stage. I don’t think any self respecting developer would be caught dead either dressed like or behaving like that actor.
On a general level, it’s been perpetually interesting to observe how conservationists generally come from highly developed nations which have already chopped down their own forests. Statistically, more forests are actually cut down for farmland, timber, dams and subterraneous natural resources rather than for development. However, it probably wouldn’t resonate as well with a gullible audience to be presented with the notion that forests are being cut down so that they can get hamburgers from their fast food outlets, furniture for their apartments, and fuel for the powerplants generating electricity for their TV’s and computers. Nor would it be politically correct to suggest that the natives are themselves burning rainforests in order to create farmland, build new villages and in general eke out a better life for themselves. It is indeed more convenient to appeal to this affluent audience’s sense of righteous indignation by portraying that forests are being destroyed for luxurious holiday destinations which would be beyond even their ability to pay for.
The test of true concern which citizens of developed nations have time and again failed at is found in their unwillingness to provide sustained support for those whose lot in this world is pathetic. We’re ok when it comes to occasionally giving a donation, but we balk at the notion of providing regularly to undeveloped nations. And don’t even think about asking us to drive around less, or not switch on our air-conditioners so often, or eat less beef, or shop less at our malls.
Incidentally, the Singapore Zoo is great. Everyone with the opportunity should pay it a visit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
