Penang tunnel, highway projects: CM’s meetings with NGOs

Penang tunnel, highway projects: CM’s meetings with NGOs

Some hoo-ha in the press about whether the state government really consulted NGOs regarding the highway and tunnel projects in Penang.

For me the real issue is, in view of increasing congestion, rising oil prices, depletion of oil and other natural resources and climate change, should we be spending billions on highways and a tunnel or investing all that money in more sustainable transport alternatives?

Anyway, there were two meetings between NGOs and the CM last year. (I was present at both these meetings.)

The first one with Penang Forum on 16 October 2011 touched on a broad range of issues, the ‘mega projects’ being one of the items raised. Extract from the Penang Forum notes of the meeting:

9. Tunnel/road mega projects

PF questioned whether these mega projects would fit in with the Transport Masterplan that is currently undergoing preparation? PF urged the holding back of the announcements of any new major projects until the Masterplan is completed. These projects do not seem to take into account the extra traffic created or the cumulative effect of several projects together in the same area. PF members are included in the State Traffic Committee. CM requested PF members to recommend suitable engineers. The CM raised the possibility of reintroducing trams.

The second meeting between the CM and NGOs (Penang Forum plus a few other NGOs) on 19 November 2011 focused more about the tunnel and highway projects, with other development and planning issues brought up. Yesterday, Penang Forum released a brief statement on the tunnel and highway aspect of that meeting:

The highway and tunnel projects ‘consultation’ on 19 November 2011 was called by Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng.

The CM invited NGOs, and it was a closed-door meeting. The press were not invited and it was not open to the public.

During the session, the CM gave a briefing and the NGOs expressed reservations.

The activists present generally felt Penang should be focusing more on sustainable transport. Moreover, the tunnel would require substantial land reclamation.

They also felt the state government should not pre-empt the Penang Transport Masterplan, which is still being finalised.

Penang Forum Steering Committee
8 March 2012

The activists were not convinced with the rationale behind these projects, especially the tunnel. At no point did they endorse these projects.

Both these meetings were closed-door meetings to which the public or press were not invited.

CAP issued a statement on 5 March calling for proper public consultation.

Public consultation lacking for Penang infrastructure projects

CAP and Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) are concerned that mega infrastructure projects in Penang are being pushed forward without adequate dissemination of information to the public or consulting the public.

Recent press reports state that the Penang government will call for a request of proposals for the construction of the 6.5 km Gurney Drive-Bagan Ajam undersea tunnel, 12 km road connecting Tanjung Bungah-Teluk Bahang, 4.2km Gurney Drive-Lebuhraya Tun Dr. Lim Chong Eu bypass and 4.6km Lebuhraya Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu-Bandar Baru Air Itam bypass. These projects are expected to be funded by land swap deals with prospective companies.

These mega projects costing billions of dollars which ultimately have to come from public resources, are meant to speed up motor traffic but not to provide affordable and efficient transport for the public.

The undersea tunnel in addition to the new bridge which is scheduled to be operational shortly, will serve only to bring more motor vehicles into the island contributing to the worsening of traffic congestion. As it is, there are more cars than people on the island. So any addition will have serious traffic impacts.

The issue of transparency and openness regarding the proposed projects is of prime importance in the early stages of planning and decision-making. The public should be provided detailed information from the beginning on the potential benefits and impacts of the project and details of the land swap deals so that they can make an informed decision on the need for such mega projects.

We do not want a repeat of the Penang Outer Ring Road (PORR) saga. The PORR project proposed by the previous State government was shrouded with secrecy, leading to protest by Penangites, who were concerned of the potential impacts of the project and land swap deals.

Denying public’s right in this regard is a breach of international criterions such as the Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development that advocates access to environmental information, public participation and access to justice in environmental matters.

The State government’s bulldozing of the mega infrastructure projects undercuts the opportunity for Penangites to participate in the decision-making process around issues which would affect their life and the environment. In addition, we have yet to see and comment on the Penang Transportation Master Plan which was commissioned by the State government.

Taking into consideration the State Government’s much publicized CAT (Competency, Accountability, Transparency) policy, we urge the Penang State government to defer the four mega infrastructure projects until proper public consultation and impact studies are tabled.

Press Statement – 5 March 2012

And the state government responded a few days later:

Kenyataan Akhbar Pegawai Khas kepada Ketua Menteri P.Pinang Zairil Khir Johari di Komtar, George Town pada 8 Mac 2012.

Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang Yang Berdasarkan Prinsip CAT Bukan Sahaja Telah Memberi Pemakluman Umum Mengenai Projek-Projek Infrastruktur Tetapi Ketua Menteri Sendiri Telah Menghadiri Dua Sesi Perbincangan Dengan Wakil-Wakil NGO Dan Pihak Umum.

Saya bagi pihak Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang ingin merakamkan perasaan kesal atas laporan akhbar Utusan Malaysia pada 6 Mac 2012 yang bertajuk “Kesal DAP tidak salur maklumat kepada rakyat”.

Dalam artikel tersebut, Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) dan Persatuan Pengguna Pulau Pinang (CAP) yang kedua-duanya diterajui oleh SM Mohamed Idris telah dilaporkan berasa kecewa dengan Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang kerana tidak menyediakan maklumat lengkap kepada orang ramai berhubung projek infrastruktur yang dilaksanakan di negeri ini.

SM Mohamed Idris dipetik berkata, “Baru-baru ini laporan akhbar menyatakan kerajaan negeri akan membuka permohonan cadangan membina terowong dasar laut sepanjang 6.5 kilometer dari Persiaran Gurney ke Bagan Ajam serta jalan sepanjang 12 kilometer yang menghubungkan Tanjung Bungah dengan Teluk Bahang serta beberapa projek lagi.”

SM Mohamed menambah isu ketelusan dan keterbukaan berhubung cadangan projek adalah keutamaan yang paling penting dalam peringkat awal perancangan dan membuat keputusan.

Katanya lagi, “Rakyat perlu diberikan maklumat lengkap dari awal mengenai potensi, manfaat dan kesan projek dan butiran pertukaran tanah supaya mereka boleh membuat keputusan bermaklumat mengenai keperluan projek mega tersebut.”

Kami tidak mempertikaikan hakikat bahawa isu ketelusan dan keterbukaan merupakan keutamaan yang paling penting, malah sebagai kerajaan yang berdasarkan prinsip CAT (Cekap, Akauntabel, Telus), kami telah mengambil pelbagai langkah untuk memaklumkan pihak umum mengenai projek-projek infrastruktur yang dicadangkan.

Pada 28 April 2011, satu sidang akhbar telah diadakan di Jabatan Perdana Menteri di Putrajaya mengenai penandatanganan Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) di antara Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang dan sebuah syarikat milikan kerajaan negara China. MOU itu telah disaksikan oleh kedua-dua Perdana Menteri Malaysia Dato’ Sri Najib Tun Razak serta Perdana Menteri China Wen Jia Bao.

MOU tersebut telah menyatakan minat syarikat kerajaan negara China ke atas empat projek infrastruktur Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang yang bertujuan untuk mengurangkan kesesakan lalulintas, iaitu terowong 6.5km dari Butterworth ke Gurney Drive, jalan pintas 4.2km dari Gurney Drive ke Lebuhraya Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu yang akan mengelakkan pusat bandar, jalan 4.6km yang akan menghubungkan Bandar Baru Air Itam kepada Lebuhraya Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu dan jalan berpasangan 12km dari Tanjung Bungah ke Teluk Bahang. Semua projek ini akan dijalankan secara tender terbuka. Kos dianggarkan di antara RM5-8 bilion untuk keempat-empat projek ini tetapi dijangka lebih rendah kerana ia dijalankan dengan tender terbuka.

Ini telah diikuti oleh sidang akhbar di Dewan Undangan Negeri Pulau Pinang pada 29 April 2011 untuk meminta pandangan rakyat ke atas empat projek infrastruktur tersebut. Ini telah disusuli oleh beberapa lagi sidang akhbar dari semasa ke semasa. Dalam sidang DUN pada 10 Mei 2011, Ketua Menteri telah sekali lagi menjawab soalan-soalan mengenai projek-projek infrastruktur tersebut.

Kerajaan Negeri dan juga MPPP telah menerima beberapa pandangan dan cadangan sejak 29 April 2011. Tambahan pula, Ketua Menteri juga telah mengadakan sesi perjumpaan dan perbincangan bersama wakil-wakil NGO dan pihak umum termasuk dengan Penang Forum pada 16 Oktober 2011 dan juga pada 19 November 2011. Dalam kedua-dua forum tersebut, Mohamed Idris telah dijemput tetapi beliau tidak dapat hadir dan telah menghantarkan wakil CAP.

Oleh itu, adalah mengejutkan bagaimana CAP boleh menyatakan bahawa tidak ada rundingan dengan NGO atau rakyat apabila begitu banyak ruang diberikan untuk membincangkan isu-isu berkaitan dengan projek-projek infrastruktur tersebut. Mengikut senarai kehadiran, kami boleh mengesahkan bahawa wakil CAP iaitu Rudhrapathy Vijayala (Ravi) telah menghadiri kedua-dua sesi tersebut.

Selaras dengan prinsip Cekap, Akauntabel dan Telus, Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang telah pun menggunakan pelbagai saluran untuk menyampaikan maklumat kepada pihak umum, termasuk dalam sesi perbincangan yang dihadiri wakil CAP. Justeru, kenyataan Presiden CAP yang mempersoalkan dasar keterbukaan dan ketelusan Kerajaan Negeri adalah tidak tepat dan amat dikesali.

Kami juga ingin mengingatkan bahawa proses tender terbuka yang dilangsungkan melalui RFP (Request For Proposal) juga akan melalui kajian kebolehlaksanaan serta penilaian kesan kepada alam sekitar. Kedua-dua proses ini akan melibatkan penyertaan pihak umum dan akan menentukan keperluan projek-projek tersebut serta mengenal pasti alternatif-alternatif lain.

Adalah jelas bahawa Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang telah mengamalkan dasar yang terbuka dan telus, bukan sahaja dengan penyampaian maklumat kepada pihak umum tetapi juga melalui dua sesi rundingan dan perbincangan dengan wakil-wakil NGO dan pihak umum yang dihadiri oleh Ketua Menteri sendiri.

Rudhrapathy Vijayavale represents CAP on the Penang Forum Steering Committee and he was present at both the meetings with the CM.

And Malaysiakini quotes him as saying:

‘It is not public consultation’

When contacted Rudhrapathy said a meeting of NGO reps with CM is not considered “public consultation”.

Public consultation include displaying plans and information about state projects, for example, the public is invited to propose their plans for the Penang Botanic Gardens, at level 3, Komtar.

“Yes, we had meetings twice with him but this is merely a meeting between NGOs and the state government, it is not public consultation,” he told Malaysiakini.

“During an NGO meeting with the CM, we express our views and grievances and he explains and clarifies his point of views. We have so far stuck on to our views and opinions,” he added.

Radhrapathy said at no time during the meetings did the NGO representatives “agree to all” the arguments presented by Guan Eng.

“Despite all our explanation and arguments, the CM fails to listen and goes ahead anyway with his views,” he added.

41 COMMENTS

  1. m still young to see “everything” but i can see from my own eyes that things has gotten better for the past 5 years. The kerajaan negeri definitely cannot satisfy everyone but i think they have “touched” more people compared to the previous kerajaan syok sendiri! Awat hangpa dok hinggak pasai pembinaan jalan kalau tak kena tol dan kerajaan tak guna duit rakyat untuk bayaq! pasai tu aku tak nampak “everything” …. rakyat, pembayar cukai, kerajaan … akan rugi ka?

     
  2. Anil

    Can you revisit this topic after 1 year as contract has been awarded to build this tunnel?

    I thik the tunnel is good as it could accelerate the development at the Prai end with a better direct connectivity to the island. Also island residents can opt to stay in Prai (cheaper homes) and can access easily to the island via this tunnel?

     
  3. Why are you complaining about LGE when LGE is doing *something* to make Penang better?

    After all, what is your intent for Penang?

    You talk about oil, you talk about over population, you talk about ecology … now, let me ask you this, Anil, you, as a human being, do you do your part in polluting this world?

    Do you drive? If you do, you are burning oil, just like the rest of us

    Do you eat? Where do you think the rice came from? Next door to your house? Someone gotta plant that darn thing, spreading fertilizers on the field, spreading insecticide to kill the insects, and then, come harvesting time they use machines (no more laborous everything-by-the-hand way) to harvest, and then, the padi is transported to the rice mill on lorries, which runs on fossil-fuel, and after the padi become rice, it is packed in plastic bags, which are made of fossil-fuel, and then, the bags of rice is transported to the supermarket on lorries, which, again, runs on fossil fuel, and then, you or your wife go to supermarket to purchase that bag of rice, and came back home, on your cars (unless you travel to and from the supermarket on bicycle), you, Anil Netto, are burning fossil fuel, just like the rest of us

    Stop complaining about depleting the precious oil, the depreciation of the ecology and so on, and so forth, when you, Anil Netto, are just as bad as the rest of us, in destroying this planet

    And furthermore, I read your article on the Catholic Herald, which is printed on VIRGIN PAPER – and the paper which your column was printed was made with TREES which were cut down

    You are killing trees than most of us, Anil Netto !!!

    Stop complaining when you are a worse offender to the world ecology, than the most of us

     
    • a better penang’s comments are both infantile and offensive – reads more like a rant. When we refer to ecological concerns, we are obviously concerned about sutainabiliity and in criticising the pakatan or anyone else, we are seeking clarity, aand greater accountability. why do we need to hhave a two-tier structure in penang – one for the rich as in an enclave and one for those who are less well-off – is penang come to that, an apartheid-like regime or the usa?

       
  4. It is rather sad to see that the opposition (and now the ruling state government) has fallen to this level. As much as I am pro-democracy and human rights, I believe that the standard and criteria for evaluating a government is its own yardstick. Here we have claims of accountability, transparency, greater participation and rights. What seems to have transpired is that these are not exercised by LGE. Having a meeting or two with NGOs is not tantamount to greater accountability and participation. This is a gesture towards involvement but it could also be a guise for actions already set into motion. Maybe here we need records to be released of the favoured plan and why and when it has arrived at. Similarly, the how is important – all these will attest to why such a decision was arrived at. An open government and freeom of information regulation/bill should be enacted and all such decisions rendered transparent.
    There are those who argued that LGE at least had meetings with NGOs and that is better than BN. If that is the argument for having an alternative government, then this does not bode well for Malaysia . We need to set greater standards and the alternative must seek to aspire to these standards and practices. Democracy is a work-in-progress and we should not just merely settle for marginal adjustments. We should and are entitled to greater accountability, participation and transparency.

     
  5. I think the tunnel is a good idea but must be used for a MRT/LRT rather than a road for cars. After that you can build an MRT/LRT loop comprising the tunnel , along eastern coast of island , across the Penang bridge and along the coast of mainland. This would be an efficient MRT/LRT loop, which people can use. And then branching from the loop, will be more LRT lines or bus lanes.

     
    • OMG. Can people start doing the real calculation on this MRT thingy!!! DO THE MATH, even KL people CANNOT AFFORD to maintain those LRT system, what make you think Penang people can afford MRT?

      In addition, the new generation of electric bicycle that cover 35-50km range in a single charge, has make mass transit obsolete, it is an unpleasant truth for many that still looking at those yesteryear way of commuting. Electric bicycle are less complicate and easy to maintain and fix, zero emission pollution and allow you to fall back to pedal when battery run out. The LED safety light so bright that even you cheapo bikes rear safety light are out of league.

       
      • Question- is it the Federal Government’s right and the state government does not have the right to give operating licence? Just look at Rapid Penang. If Rapid Penang wanted to improve its services, they must ask the State Government for exclusive bus lanes if the State Government ownes the road. So far has Rapid Penang (owned by UMNO Federal Government) did that?

         
      • Rapid Penang can be improved. Unfortunately, that is hard when public transport is privatized to a group of cronies and federal bureaucrats have the final say on transport planning

         
      • Actually, Rapid Penang is an entity that is owned by the federal government. Not an ideal situation. It should be handed over to the Penang government.

         
      • IMHO, Rapid is totally rubbish. I wonder Anil ever compare Rapid bus build quality with other private own bus? It is junk metal build by cronies umno company … with excessive mark up.

        State Government should owns the road rights rather than own some bus company.

         
  6. Well,. the problem with this criticism is that the 2nd bridge toll rate has been fixed. Even if PR gets into Putrajaya now, the cost of reversing this damage will cost the Federal Govt too much money..If they can’t do it, its better to give Penangite a better choice and force the hands of 2nd bridge to the negotiation table and sell out all their concession to the Federal Govt and help all Malaysian..

    This won’t have happen if Penang’s own son was not elected so strongly in 2004..

     
  7. Honestly, I am impress that Mr LGE bring out an 2nd penang bridge “counter-offer” plan with this “tunnel highway” idea.
    If “NGOs” don’t like the tunnel highway, then why they keep mums on 2nd bridge that also bring huge debts to Penang people, especially when Malaysia show sign of ABOLISH petrol subsidies in the near future.

     
  8. NGOs objected , fair enough. At least that is already a sign of participation with the Chief Minister .
    Any NGOs propose a better plan , idea , solution other than a plain old objection ( as usual)?
    CM met the NGOs twice for feedback ,

    The prime minister and his cabinet ministers never sought views from the public or any NGOs before when it come to ARE , Lynas , MAS merger , Smart tunnel , Scenic bridge , Putrajaya , Corridors , Iskandar project , PKFZ , Submarines , “saman ekor” , ISA , OSA , garbage incinerators , using your EPF funds and hundreds of others.

     
    • I proposed a Penang Citizen’s Alternative Transportation Initiative. the transportation master plan is expect to be ready by end of this month. Let wait and see if the state government ever bother about any feedback from the people. When there is a comprehensive proposal nobody bother, when anyone question the CM, you ask for plan, proposal or whatever. When are you guy want to be a political master? When you always behave like a political follower or worst political slave.

       
  9. Speaking of tunnel, did anyone ask why the KL Smart Tunnel failed to mitigate the reent flooding in KL?

    Perhaps National Geographic Channel ought to have a sequel of the documentary to investigae the failure.

     
    • 5 plants were on the night sky casing unusual tide thru’ the gravity forces, instead of water flow to the sea. The sea water flow into all the river and all the smart lokangs. 4 years ago I already warned LGe againstusing horizontal conveying drainage system to mitigate flood as it have been proven even with the capacity of the Smart Tunnel, flood is still inevitable. It is just like traffic flowing to one single exit point.
      With all the no brainers in charge, you can forget all implementing any sensible and proven solutions from western countries. We are more than more 20 years behind, probably it will be 50 years behind before we realise our foolishness.

       
      • If so brainy, why the king tide does not push the Sg Kelang backwards and flood KL City epecially KL Padang and instead those near Ampang?

        If king tide happen who can control the forces of nature?

         
  10. Hi there, all NGO’s, SAM , CAP etc, please see the state of our
    once proud ferry service and what is happening. Incompetent
    operator and the like. Faceing a slow death. Why the double
    standard?

     
  11. Trams: I come from a city of trams! To me not the solution. If something happens on the rail, the trams pile up, no possibility to divert. If they have no separate lane (and I do not see Penang streets wide enough to provide for that) they get stuck in the traffic. Double parking (for e.g. deliveries) also delays trams, they cannot contour like buses. A whole network of cables attached to (heritage) houses or poles! Also more fatal accidents with trams than with buses. There are nowadays also ‘green’ buses!

    Tunnel: would be nice if it was for a metro. From Butterworth station (connecting to rail) and huge parking – to Komtar and through to Bayan Lepas/airport and Teluk Bahang and Balik Pulau would cover the island (?). Understood technically feasible, but not enough passengers to make it sustainable?? Anil, do you know whether there have been made studies for metro in Penang?

     
    • In this case, on what position or status that the NGOs can go and see and talk with CM? As an individual capacity or representing an organisation at large?

       
  12. Public consultation means to discuss with those representing public interests to see if there are good ideas or alternatives which can be adopted. It is not a meeting to agree to ALL the views of one party or the other.

    CAP and others are missing the point.

     
    • Yes, but for there to be public opinion and consultation, proper and detailed plans, estimated toll charges, itemised budgets and financing have to be released to the public. You cannot just tell people the rough location of the projects, distance and estimated cost of 8bn. Which parcels of land are to be swapped? We know its near gurney drive but why not release a map demarcating the exact land or reclamation rights? Which are the underground portions and which are elevated? How many lanes each way? Are there going to be green features or is it going to be like jelutong expressway? Would there be a train line together with the tunnel from butterworth to island? Will there be need for any land acquisitions? There questions remain to be answered. The state government has many ideas and meticulously planned projects. Surely they cannot make everyone happy. But they can release it to the public and let the public judge for themselves.

       
  13. Trams – nearest city you can look is HK. They have trams in HK island and on NT – Yuen Long to Tuen Mun. The tram in HK takes a long time to travel from Saukiwan to Sheung Wan and when they come, they come in a group as the trams have to partly share with the cars and delayed by them. They are smaller in size like the Honda Kapcai but they are agile. They carry less passengers than those in Yuen Long. Yuen LOng trams are much bigger and they are timed by the GPS to show when is the next tram coming. They are are not shared with other road users and hence very quick but the tracks are very ugly in sight.

     
  14. Penang is fast becoming a congested place to reside with traffic jams from tanjong bungah to bayan lepas . Speculations for these are more and more people are attracted to move to Pg for investment increasing employment opportunities or taking up residence albeit perception Pg is the best place to reside in Malaysia. We can’t prevent people from other states from buying up houses( houses in pg have gone up like crazy ) hence increasing the population and contributing to the traffic jam.Even if we have a fantastic public transport system , does not assure that people still like to travel by cars and if we introduce controls like in Spore , people will also complain about the cost .Penangites are already complaining that food is getting expensive caused by tourists. All the NGOS can besides objecting to the projects provide concrete proposals to alleviate the dilemma. Unless we introduce laws prohibiting people from coming to visit , stay or invest hence creating to all these problems, just calling for a stop to projects does not seem to be a problem solver. By the time , all the concerned citizens and not necessary they have the same opinions provide their inputs for the state government to consider , Pg will by then collapse overloaded and another group of citizens will then be critical for the government doing nothing and ended up with the blame just like the previous administration

     
    • Leong, you are right that we cannot stop people from coming. In fact we should encourage ppl to come. However, efficient public transport is a must. There are many poor people who cannot buy a car or any motorised vehicle but who still have to go to work, which may be far from home. Penang like every place on earth has poor people as well. They don’t have a choice unlike you and me. But why should they suffer, many who don’t own cars contribute to our state as well. By all means build as many roads/highways as you can afford. Singapore has many expressways too. Tolled ones even. But first of all put in facilities that can be used by all people, like public transport and cheaper still, simple pedestrian walkways (instead of walking on the road itself). After that build as many roads for as many cars as you wish. No objections.

      Regarding tourism, more tourists will come if you have an efficient, world renowned public transport system which facilitates movement.

       
    • At least the Pakatan government engaged with the NGO whereas the BN government will make its own decision and tell you that is final just like Lynas, and if you protest, BN government will send it thugs to bash you, that is BN goverment for you !!!

      The OneCareMalaysia is caring about their own pockets, you mati you punya pasal.

      Ya, Anil, please press for public transport, that is the priority !!!

       
  15. This LGE is just the classic example of typical Chinese attitude. As the popular chinese saying: “He accept your views but his actions remain the same”

    All meeting with NGOs are just for show. Just like previous aliran/mini local election (!). LGE still clueless after 4 years in actions. That is pure incompetency.

     
    • GERAKAN is a mainly Penang Chinese and MCA drop-outs party within the BN. So, every member in GERAKAN practices the typical Chinese attitudes. It listened
      to the views of the Penang people but its actions were that of the party’s selected few. That was why there
      was no progress in Penang during the perivious GERAKN Government administration.

       
    • Is having sex against the course of nature, like Chua Soi Lek, a Chinese attitude, dude?

      Do you do the same and have someone record your actions and distributed to the public? That too Chinese attitude, dude?

       
  16. I believe the NGOs had their say with the CM. Of course, they can request more meetings to press ahead their reservation.

    At the end of the day, it is the CM’s call whether to go ahead with the projects or not. He has been gracious to organize 2 meetings with the NGOs and I am sure when the planning process advances, he will provide more information. I think the decision has more or less been made but the NGOs can still play an important role in suggesting ways to mitigate the expected increase in traffic.

    Besides, the CM is also putting his political future on the line.

     

Leave a Reply