It has been over a week since Lim Guan Eng was sworn in as Penang Chief Minister, but already he is discovering some of the serious challenges facing the new Penang state government.
He faces a daunting task. Planning approvals for major development projects in the past have been haphazard at best and irresponsible, dubious and shady at worst. The PGCC Campaign Group met Guan Eng this afternoon in the Bilik Gerakan (someone quipped that it should be renamed “Bilik DAP”) of the Chief Minister’s office in Komtar. After driving the final nails into the PGCC coffin, the activists from Penang’s main civil society groups said they would come up with a detailed proposal to turn the Turf Club land into a People’s Park within the next couple of months. Guan Eng joked that the developer’s bouquet of flowers had not influenced him in any way.
The activists also highlighted a whole range of planning and approval shortcomings that have left the island looking increasingly like a veritable concrete mess, plasted with huge billboards and plagued by poor enforcement. Among the examples cited were proposals for 40-storey tower blocks on the coastline of Tanjung Bungah and the massive Hunza development along Gurney Drive. The Campaign Group stressed that there should be no major development work until Local Plans are approved.
Land reclamation was another major issue. The activists pointed out that the previous adminstration had lost huge amounts of potential revenue by virtually handing over land reclamation projects to private developers to make lucrative profits while state coffers hardly benefited.
If land reclamation had been properly handled – there are 16,000 hectares of potential land that can be reclaimed – it could have generated enough revenue for the state to finance its operating and development expenditure for many years. Instead, IJM (along the Jelutong Expressway) and E&O (along Tanjong Tokong) appear to be the prime beneficiaries.
Land reclamation has also caused severe environmental problems – mud flats in Gurney Drive and siltation. Guan Eng pointed out that, thanks to siltation, the authorities may now have to spend federal funds (public money) to dredge the sea around the port area. Let’s not even talk about the damage it has caused to marine and coastal biodiversity.
The new Chief Minister said that Penang has to cope with tight financial constraints, with a budget deficit of RM35 million announced last year. Worse, there are several court cases coming up involving dubious land deals undertaken during the previous administration that have exposed the state to potential legal damages. In one such case involving a shady land deal in 2003, in which the legal officer acting for the state strangely conceded liability, the state government now could be exposed to RM30 million in damages. “I don’t know where I am going to find RM30 million,” said a worried Guan Eng, an accountant by training.
The Penang state government must institute a thorough investigation into how this could have happened.
I asked him about Penang’s financial reserves, and he said the state had about RM200-odd million in reserves. But, he added, the government would be reluctant to touch this as it would affect the state’s credit rating.
It is at times like this that we wish that land reclamation had been properly handled in the past. It could have been a major source of revenue for the state, provided of course that the environmental aspect had been thoroughly studied first.
The Chief Minister also confirmed that all files had been taken away from their offices. “Maybe they wanted you to start on a ‘clean slate’,” someone quipped.
As for the re-introduction of local government elections, Guan Eng said that Penang was the only state so far to have committed itself to restoring elected councils. But in view of the cost and logistics involved, he felt that local council elections should be best held to coincide with the next general election.
CCTV cameras to curb crime?
Guan Eng said that he had prioritised security as his main concern for the next few months. He appeared keen on installing more CCTV cameras in crime-prone areas as a preventive measure – a move which could cost RM20 million.
I hope Guan Eng will reconsider this as I do not think it will be money well spent.
For one thing, the effectiveness of CCTV cameras in crime prevention is questionable (although some may say its value lies in its deterrent effect).
Secondly, it could lead to a Big Brother society, where cameras watch the people’s every move. Before long, you will have cameras spying on you wherever you go – and there will always be a need for more and more cameras if we don’t attack the root (socio-economic) causes of the rising crime rate.
Thirdly, in view of the state’s budget difficulties, there are better ways to spend this money. In fact, the Penang state government should leave crime-fighting to the the police. (Are there serious problems in policing which the proposed IPCMC could help resolve?) The state government should instead look at the underlying reasons for the rise in crime. Is it due to social problems created by unemployment, the widening gap between the rich and poor, the alienation of the working class, the lack of skills training that would otherwise enable more people to seek gainful employment? (See a comment by Hamid Ibrahim below, in which he includes an article suggesting that the state of urban ecology is an important factor in explaining urban crime.)
Installing CCTVs was an idea mooted by the previous administration and the police. Even before the general election, there were already 31 CCTVs in the Penang town centre with plans for 31 more on the mainland and another 94 on Penang Island. The way I see it, the main beneficiary will probably be the camera and equipment suppliers. So watch out for their marketing sweet talk.
Guan Eng receives documents from the PGCC Campaign Group
That said, the PGCC Campaign Group’s meeting with the new Chief Minister has achieved its objective of alerting the new state leaders about some critical issues that need to be resolved.
Guan Eng appeared down-to-earth (“No need to address us as YB”), warm and sincere and keen to make a fresh start for Penang. He kept telling us, “This is your government; we want the people to feel part of the government” – stuff like that, which went down well. He recalled his consultation with Indian groups and how delighted and empowered they felt when they were allowed to speak in Tamil while someone translated for the chief minister. “I wasn’t even sure if they were scolding me!” he laughed.
The new state government thus far enjoys tremendous public support and goodwill, and many have volunteered their services to help fashion a new Penang for all. This administration will need all the help it can get.
Related posts:
agree with you on the need to have CCTVs. The state government should look into the underlying reasons for the rise in crime cases.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
great start. on the missing documents, its the same in the other states now under the new coalition. i can only assume that the previous administration has lots of dirt to hide otherwise why the wanton destruction of documents.
shame on you, gerakan.
MCA and UMNO …, i can understand but from gerakan fellas? guess, the disease called corruption is rather infectious.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The obscene excesses and gross mismanagement of Penang under the BN gives us a hint of the Herculean task that lies ahead
in trying to sort out the mess created by unscrupulous public servants, especially over the last 25 years. However, a bit of housecleaning is not only good exercise, the rewards are instantly felt once it’s accomplished! Soldier on merrily, Guan Eng!
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
thank you anil. the updates you bring daily have made me an ardent reader of your blog. the photos speaks volume. may your good work enlighten all of us!
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FELT VERY SORRY FOR OUR ACCOUNTANT CM.HE CANT EVEN START IS JOB WITH ALL THE MESS LEFT AROUND BY FORMER BN.HOPE THINGS WILL SETTLE DOWN.DONT WITCH HUNT FIRST.PROVE CM CAN PERFORM.THE LATER PART PUT BN BEHIND BARS.TOUGH JOB FOR YOU CM,BUT YOU WILL PERFORM IF YOU JUST FOCUS ON YOUR NEW JOB AS CM.APPOINT SOMEONE TO CLEAN THE MESS CREATED BY BN.KEEP ON TELLING THE MESS BN CREATED IS OLD STORIES TO SOME OF US.NOTHING NEW.THE NEW THING IS YOU ARE IN CONTROL NOW.LET PROVE IT TO BN.THANKS.RAJ RAMAN.RELIGION;MY PROBLEM ANWSER TO GOD.RACE;DREAMING TO BE MALAYSIAN PUTRA
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What’s happened to policemen patrolling on foot? They act as a reasonable deterrent and it shouldn’t cost more.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The new Penang State Govt. have made all the right moves so far. I know it will be a Herculean task to clean up the dirt, so Penangites must be a source of strength to the CM, understand his mammoth task and do not demand immediate results. Remember he has no files to work from. Damn those crooks from the previous govt!!!!!
When you have a clean, transparent and accountable govt, you will keep voting them for many years to come. To Brother Lim Guan Eng, my prayers are with you. Please soldier on.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LGE is correct – more CCTVs is not going to solve the crime rate, as criminals usually hide their faces when committing crimes most of the time.
Big Brother watching/spying citizens as in Britain, and USA is more the case.
Deal more stringently with criminals and get the community involved is or the better way.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Any wrong doings or mismanagements or corruptions by the past government should be exposed and the executives/personnels involved should be charged in court and made to repay back what had been taken.This is where LGE should get all the monies to settle for all the damages and messed created by the personnels or parties involved.
Any new or pending dealings or projects without proper documents or channelled should be struck off, savings the current government precious time and money.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One of the initial steps in curbing crime would be to put in a state sanctioned civilian monitoring comittee, to look at the effectiveness of the state police in handling crime.
The would also coordinate the communication between the state police contingent and the state government.
The police are also ill-equipped and have not enough manpower. Probably we could introduce state owned “polis bantuan” especially those municipal enforcement officials, and give them more tasks rather than issuing parking tickets.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] that are irresponsible, dubious and shady. AnilNetto had an excellent report posted on his blog here covering the PGCC Campaign Group’s recent meeting with Guan Eng. The beginning of good [...]
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have so much to say but I do not know where to start from since the rot has gone to the core.It certainly a daunting task but IT CAN BE ACHIEVED.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Comment
Crime – Cause of
It is a major issue for the Federal Government as well as the State governments.
What Guan Eng should do is to set up a Committe of Experts
to find out the causes of Crime.
There are a number of them.
1. Unemployment problem should be looked into
2. Distribution of Wealth – rich against poor
3. Talk to a taxi driver – he says that he has been
driving a taxi for more than 10,20, or 30 years
but the taxi belongs a wealthy man who has 50 or 100 taxis. It is ubelievable.
The government should take action on this matter. In Singapore only owners should run the taxi.
There a number of Factors. The government should appoint
and find out the true reason for Crime. You do not solve it by fixiing CCTV’s here and there. It is a major and fundamental issue.
hamid ibrahim
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Legal Articles on Crime
Patricia Brantingham is University Professor of Computational Criminology and the director of the Canadian Institute for Urban Research Studies (ICURS) at Simon Fraser University.
Next time you walk through a city, look for artifacts of daily crime and disorder. Look for bars on first-floor windows. Look for broken glass. Look for signs that say: “No bikes” or “Park closes at 10 p.m.” or “Not responsible for valuables left in car.” These examples indicate not only the obvious—that the area around you is dangerous—but also that neighborhood developers failed to consider all of the people who would use the space and consequently built in opportunities for crime.
At the same time, walls without graffiti, highly active areas with no posted warning signs, and places where youth gather without bothering others are indicators of space that has been designed to maximize use while minimizing crime and disorder. Both kinds of indicators can be found in all types of neighborhoods. Urban settings have a major influence on crime and disorder in the course of everyday life. Attention to how these settings are structured can reduce the dangers of crime in city living.
The popular image of urban crime is both sensational and misleading. The news-media frame public perceptions of urban crime and disorder by focusing on the dramatic and the grim, not on the vast number of everyday crimes that lack sensationalism but have a direct impact on victims. Media gives prominent coverage to serial killers and rioters, to bank robbers and carjackers, to drive-by shootings and human smuggling.
The popular, media-derived image of urban crime patterns is largely incorrect. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports show that violent crimes account for only about one-eighth of the index crimes reported to police. The other seven-eighths are property crimes.
Common and Frequent Crime
The crime and disorder found in urban settings is usually more mundane and corrosive than media imagery suggests. The numerous acts of minor violence, crimes against property, and conditions of disorder and incivility that never gain attention from the news-media constitute the real criminal components of urban life; assaults and property crime occur much more frequently than violent crime.
Many observers would like to endorse the simple idea that poverty causes crime. If that were true, eradication of poverty would eradicate crime. The issue is far more complex. The nature of urban crime is shaped by many factors—including both the physical form of the city and its economic diversity. In many developing countries, the volume of property crimes is driven by the need for food and minimal subsistence. The 1996 International Crime Victimization Survey published by the UN Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute found that Argentina, Brazil, and Zimbabwe have the highest percentages of victimized populations, yet the developed countries—including Iceland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Finland, and Belgium—had higher overall crime levels. Canada ranked 8th and the United States 17th in crime levels among participating nations, a finding that is counterintuitive for residents of both countries.
The higher crime levels of developed countries are largely attributable to the expanded criminal opportunities created by affluence and mobility. Victimization in Western Europe and North America is dominated by vehicle-related crime. Car crime in developing countries is non-acquisitive: 70 percent of stolen cars are recovered.
Urban crime
Early twentieth century criminology might reasonably be considered the criminology of urban places. During the 1920s and 1930s much of the attention of criminologists focused on the “criminogenic city,” however, by the close of the century researchers had moved away from the notion that the city is itself criminogenic. Instead research on urban crime has become concerned mainly with explaining why urban crime rates vary, why some social, economic, and spatial characteristics are correlated with variations in urban crime rates, and how certain crime characteristics of urban places affect individual criminality.
Concern that the city might have a crime-causing effect did not begin with American criminologists. Émile Durkheim (1897), Max Weber (1958), Ferdinand Toennies (1887), and other European sociologists wrote about the changes that occurred as a result of the transition of societies from agrarian and village-based forms to industrial and urban-based ones. They proposed that during rapid social change, growing and expanding cities would be hotbeds of crime (and experience a number of other problems). One can safely assume that most eighteenth-and nineteenth-century philosophers and social scientists believed that even without rapid change, city life itself would be criminogenic. That is, they believed that in circumstances of slow change or even social stability that negative influences of cities themselves would lead to higher levels of crime than would occur in nonurban populations. This belief was not without reason. London and other major European cities were difficult places to live. To go out at night before the advent of gaslights meant moving about with a large group of men carrying weapons and torches. To do otherwise was to invite nearly certain mayhem and robbery (Stark).
American sociologists shared similar beliefs. Social Darwinists at the turn of the century saw pathology in urban life itself (Wirth; Davis). Early social workers, taking their intellectual justification from the Social Darwinists, created the juvenile court and other social service agencies (for example, Hull House founded by Jane Addams in Chicago) to try to control crime and delinquency among wayward urbanites, many of whom were thought to be negatively influenced by life in the city.
In the period between 1920 and World War II, sociologists associated with the University of Chicago began to construct explanations concerning why cities might have higher crime rates than the hinterland. But more importantly, they were interested in documenting and explaining variations in crime levels within cities (Park, Burgess, and McKenzie; Shaw and McKay).
At the time, many believed that crime in the city, and especially in particular sections of the city, was caused by the influx of immigrants, and especially those from “crime prone” ethnic groups. However, researchers from the Chicago School observed in their studies that some sections of cities consistently had higher crime rates than others, regardless of who populated those areas. They argued and demonstrated with data that crime rates can be explained more accurately by focusing on the ecology of areas in the city, rather than on the ethnic composition of the population inhabiting those areas. They described a process whereby immigrants, upon arrival into the United States, typically moved into the poor, blighted neighborhoods because that is where they could afford to live. Crime in these areas was high and reflected poor living conditions, as these neighborhoods experienced great levels of poverty, racial heterogeneity, transience, and family disruption. However, as succeeding generations of these immigrant families improved their lot they moved to better neighborhoods, and as a result, their ethnic groups’ crime rate declined.
Meanwhile, new immigrants from different ethnic groups repopulated the neighborhoods that the earlier arrivals had vacated. Despite the near complete change in population composition, crime levels in these transitory areas remained high. Chicago School criminologists thus concluded that it was not criminogenic characteristics of ethnic groups that led to elevated rates of crime, but the nature of the urban ecology in which they lived.
Nearly seven decades later, theories that address urban crime rely on the earlier findings from the Chicago School studies and continue to adopt an approach that emphasizes the importance of urban ecology. Thus, the roots of modern criminology’s examination of urban crime can be traced to the theories of the Chicago School and their contemporaries. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, while criminologists use new analytic techniques, new research tools, and modified explanations, even the casual reader of the current literature cannot help but be impressed by the debt that modern researchers owe to their predecessors in the effort to understand and explain crime in urban areas.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/2227/Urban-Crime.html
hamid ibrahim
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
CCTV should put on as a trial and consider its effectiveness in local contact. Imagine 2 policemen in the control room can patrol 10 different locations in the city. Look at London bombing or recent killing of a Korean in Sydney. The CCTV can recall the past events. CCTV is just another aid in combating crime in the city whereas it allows more police to patrol in suburbs.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
CCTV is not going to work believe me! I was a snatch theft victim and I was told there was a CCTV installed nearby, I requested the police to check but they refused, they said CCTV can only ‘see’ the pedestrian walkway within short distance, mine was just 50 yards away!
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Agreed on the CCTV big brother problem. Solution is for the State government to influence the Federal police force to improve through better police pay, adequate foot patrol, and full implementation of IPCMC proposals.
CCTV’s real cost is in maintenance, operation, repair, and storage of images. A compromise is to provide incentive (perhaps tax deduction like buying computer) for shops to install their own CCTVs. That way, CCTV purchases will be private and competitive, maintenance will be in private hands, and ownership of the video images will not be centralized. The police can still summon them perhaps through the approval of a local magistrate.
The Cantonment Road – Burmah Road junction in Pulau Tikus has seen so many daylight robberies that the CCTV/Security Equipment shop at the corner was an ironic joke.
I have drafted 162 questions for the new State government that may help tease out more information from the State bureaucrats. They include questions on state revenues, land, environment, etc, and are published here at: http://penangwatch.net/node/2113
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
thanks anil for the insightful news. keep on the good work. and so far LGE, the new CM has been doing a wonderful job. he was at the muslim function last thursday and was in church last friday. i appreciate his efforts to be one with the people. give him time to deliver.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am delighted to see a new beginning. Commendable job by the committee for setting up a meeting at such as well planned manner.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Agreed overall good work for LGE.
But I am getting a sinking feeling about postponing local election to the next GE, on the reason of cost (see paragraph above CCTV section). This is giving in too early. I also do not want to see the LGE government get into the habit of hiding behind blaming BN for past problems and constraints, rather than doing bold things.
But I agree we need to the LGE government some time to work. These are just well-intended cautionary notes.
MCA is already talking about surveying for possible change to local election laws. DAP should not give in too quickly.
Reneging on this promise will cost DAP dearly.
DAP should be seen to propose legislative changes aggressively and bug the BN government on enabling local elections. Meanwhile, conduct “mock” election or opinion polls before appointing city councillors. Do this even if it becomes a little messy. A little messy is actually good because people will remember DAP did not go back on its words.
My sinking feeling comes from the likelihood that once DAP operatives taste the “honey” of appointed “councillorship,” they will get hooked, and will not give up that power to appoint and to be appointed.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Anil,
The new Penang government must shape up !
I have pointed out to both Guan Eng and Jeff Ooi about the danger in PBA, with BN (reps) still populated the Bod of both the PBAHB and PBAPP, ( please refer to http://www.pba.com.my/bod_pbahb.htm & http://www.pba.com.my/bod_pbapp.htm ) many days ago and nothing has yet been done.
We also understand that the new government would face a financial crunch. We have devised a plan for the new Penang government to obtain fresh sources of income, and have submitted the plan to the new government.
The plan is about the seting up an investment arm for Penang, ala Temasek of Singapore, but till now they have yet to reply.
I mean, there _are_ Penangites that are willing to help the new government, but them people – Guan Eng, Jeff Ooi & Co., – who are not Penangites, just won’t trust us.
If they want to become OUR government, they must begin to learn to trust the Penangites. After all, this is our home, and we want the BEST for our own home !
We Penangites have voted for CHANGE, and it’s CHANGE that we want to see, not same-old, same-old.
Please tell Guan Eng and Jeff Ooi that the more they delay, the worse the situation they are going to find themselves in.
Sincerely,
Ignatius Lee
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This message is in reply to Kah Seng…
Kah Seng, I agree with you that Guan Eng & Co. must shape up.
Instead of placing all the blames to Tsu Koon & Co., they MUST do something NEW.
Me and my friends have submitted plans for them, and Guan Eng & Co., are acting just like Tsu Koon & Co., totally UNRESPONSIVE !
Our plans include mass-transit, environment, investment arm, business revival, and so on, and so forth. We are doing this not to look for “kang tao”, but rather, to chip in to help our own home – The Magnificient Penang State.
We have also pointed out to both Jeff Ooi and Guan Eng the danger of retaining the BN (reps) in the PBA’s Board of Directors, but many days have past, and Guan Eng & Co. still take NO ACTION.
In fact, you can check for yourself the BoD of both PBAHB (www.pba.com.my/bod_pbahb.htm) and PBAPP (www.pba.com.my/bod_pbapp.htm)
We already told both Guan Eng and Jeff Ooi that it is utmostly irresponsible for them to let the BN (reps) still populating the Bod of both companies because OUR WATER SUPPLY depends on PBA !
More than a week have passed, Guan Eng & Co., still do NOTHING !
Is there a way for us, the Penangites, to force Guan Eng to do the things he SHOULD do?
I am getting really tired of listening to the unending blaming song played by Guan Eng & Co.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Kah Seng,
Your http://penangwatch.net/node/2113 only leads to the following :
Welcome to penangwatch.net
Sponsored listings for penangwatch.net:
* Cari Jam Tangan Baru?
Cari Tawaran Hebat, Iklan Di Mudah Cepat, Percuma. Tak Payah Register!
http://www.Mudah.com.my
* Find Penang Hotels
Great Deals from budget to luxury Search many travel sites at once!
penang.bezurk.com
* Find Watches You Like
150,000+ watches. Huge selection! Search by design.
http://www.like.com
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As the saying goes Rome was not built in a day.Our Mr.Lim Guan Eng has just taken over from Nero(The BN govt). So he has to put off the burning greed (the BN cronies) that is still present there and start rebuilding Penang to be the Jewel of the Crown.It will take time and we must give all the support we can, to back him up, especially the people of Penang.WATCH OUT FOR TROUBLE MAKERS!!!
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pls bring all the culprits to court and take the ill money out of them to support to build a peacefull and beautifull Penang.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0