Home Blog Page 545

An impassioned plea to save the environment from a 12-year-old

Severn Cullis-Suzuki, then 12, addresses the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZsDliXzyAY&hl=en&rel=0]

To all those greedy and wasteful people (and their corporations) who are destroying the environment, think of your children and your families and what kind of world you will leave behind for them.

Who is she? According to Wikipedia:

Severn Cullis-Suzuki (born 1979) is an environmental activist, speaker, television host and author. Born to writer Tara Elizabeth Cullis and Canadian geneticist and environmental activist David Suzuki, Cullis-Suzuki received a B.Sc. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from Yale University in 2002. She has spoken around the world about environmental issues, urging listeners to define their values, act with the future in mind, and take individual responsibility.

In 1992, at the age of 12, Cullis-Suzuki raised money with members of ECO, the Environmental Childrens Organization (a group she founded) to attend the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro. Along with group members Michelle Quigg, Vanessa Suttie, and Morgan Geisler, Severn presented environmental issues from a youth perspective at the Summit, where she received a standing ovation for a speech to the delegates. The group also addressed delegates at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).

5 state govts back call to free ISA detainees, Guan Eng tells Makkal Sakthi crowd

No letting up: Some 3,000 Makkal Sakthi and Hindraf supporters call for release of ISA detainees

For one moment, it looked as if the general election campaign was not yet over. The orange shirts were back in numbers. A similar crowd had packed the Penang Chinese Town Hall in the run-up to the general election.

Makkal Sakthi is still alive and kicking – and the newfound sense of solidarity has not abated one bit.

But how was Hindraf, the organiser, able to get a permit so easily for this gathering? Well, I suppose it helps if your star speaker is the Penang Chief Minister! Not that permits should be required for such gatherings. A couple of uniformed cops sat in the audience, a couple more outside the hall.

Syed Ibrahim, the coordinator of the Abolish ISA Movement (GMI), gave a run-down on why the ISA had to be abolished. Also on stage was human rights lawyer Latheefa Koya. It has been a long time since I had seen such a huge crowd enthusiastically calling for the release of ISA detainees. In between, cries of Makkal Sakthi! and Valga! (Long live people power!) pierced the air.

family members arrive

Grand reception: ISA detainees’ family members enter the hall to a rousing welcome

How times have changed. If we want to look at it from a racial point of view, you had a Malay activist addressing a largely Indian crowd at the Chinese Town Hall!

petition

The fear is gone: Young girls sign a petition calling for the release of ISA detainees as Fadiah from the GMI/Bar Council Human Rights Sub-committee beams

I don’t think I have seen so many people queuing up to sign petitions calling for the release of ISA detainees. (Some of these detainees have been held for more than six years!) Where previously people would have been afraid or reluctant to sign such petitions, tonight there was no such fear. People were distributing all sorts of anti-ISA literature. Volunteers collected donations for the ISA detainees’ families. Amazing! Surely, it can’t be too long before the ISA is totally abolished.

Crowd puller: Guan Eng is mobbed outside the hall by Makkal Sakthi and Hindraf supporters after giving the five state governments’ backing for the release of ISA detainees

It was an especially meaningful occasion for Guan Eng. Tonight was exactly 19 years to the day since he was released from ISA detention in 1989.

Guan Eng delighted the audience in the packed hall when he told them, “You are not alone in your call for the release of ISA detainees. You have five state governments backing this call and I will take this message to Parliament!” he said to loud applause. He told the crowd that the huge swing in their votes had made a big difference in the general election this time.

The entire gathering rose to their feet to cheer when a petition calling for the release of the ISA detainees was later handed over to the Chief Minister.

Later, after the event, I ran into a few pals, J, M and S, at a hawker centre. Politics was the hot topic. J wanted to take a bet (beers and kacang!) that Anwar would be Prime Minister by 1 Sept while S and M looked sceptical.

All three of them wanted the ISA abolished. But M and S said they would first like Mahathir to experience what it felt like to be unjustly detained in Kamunting and cut off from loved ones. “Just for six months and then we can abolish the ISA!” said S.

I looked at S. He was serious.

J and I, however, felt that this would be wrong. No one deserves to be detained without trial, not even Mahathir or whoever else has used this harsh and evil law. Everyone has the right to a fair trial.

Powerful corporate interests penetrate Penang local councils

Just got a text message from an unhappy political scientist friend, who forwarded to me an sms that he had sent to a DAP rep in Penang:

People not happy with councillors appoint & list. old wine in new bottle. expect you guys to deliver your promises during election.

Also received another email from a concerned Penangite. Interesting that he also describes it as “old wine in new bottle”:

now that the MPPP & MPSP councillors lists are out, I’m sure many of us are NOT happy — personally I think it is just old wine in new bottle, especially treating the political appointments as consolation for those left out in the election and also having the ADUNs doubling up as councillors as well.
isn’t it time the civil society rise up once again to make our displeasure and disappontment heard by the new state gov, to let them know loud and clear that this is a very bad move by them, and to remind them their promises during the run-up to the last GE?

There is a certain degree of dissatisfaction on the ground on this issue of appointments of councillors – although many are prepared to give the DAP-PKR a bit more time to get their act together and work towards local democracy. But that patience could wear thin if no progress is made in this direction – and the honeymoon period could end sooner than we think.

There can be no compromise on this issue. The Pakatan leaders have to get cracking and give us a quick timeline or roadmap of their path towards local council elections. After all, it was a major campaign pledge in Penang. And the longer it is delayed, the more disenchantment will brew among those who voted for PR.

We don’t want to be stuck with the same system of rewarding party loyalists by appointing them to local councils. That’s the BN style, and people expect the Pakatan to be different and to restore local democracy – pronto. They have to start finding ways and means of overcoming the legal hurdles and move in that direction quickly.

When the DAP mentioned that 10 NGO representatives would be included in the two municipals, many thought this would be a hugely significant interim step towards broader elected representation. Few thought that the term “NGOs” would encompass representatives from the various Chambers of Commerces.

Many were therefore taken aback when they realised that the corporate/business reps would outnumber the traditional “civil society” types. Out of the seven “NGO” reps actually appointed to the councils on the island and on the mainland, five represent corporate interests. In the Seberang Perai council, all three “NGO” reps are from commerce and industry: the Chinese and Indian Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers. Over on the island, the Malay and Chinese Chambers of Commerce have a rep each.

These Chamber reps represent powerful business and corporate interests and not the interests of the ordinary person on the street. One single rep from a Chamber of Commerce carries the weight of not just a single company but a whole battalion of business and corporate interests.

Many of the battles that the local councils will have to engage in are likely to pit them against corporate interests (including property developers) infringing on the rights of ordinary people or degrading the environment. Local councillors will also have to grapple with promoting accountability in the awarding of contracts and alienation of state land and gauge whether these deals would really be in the people’s interest. How can they do this easily when they have vested interests within their own ranks? Wouldn’t this give rise to cases of conflict of interest?

We have already witnessed the terrible degradation of the environment and the land scams in Penang – largely as a result of those with vested business interests cosying up to ruling politicians.

Now that these business reps have penetrated the councils, whose interests will they uphold during council meetings – corporate interests or the people’s interests? No prizes for guessing.

If they can include so many corporate reps, where are the reps from consumer groups, trade unions, community organisations, residents associations and senior citizens? What about those championing the cause of workers?

That said, I am pleased to see Lim Kah Cheng and Prof Francis Loh – the only non-party, non-business reps – among the ranks of the councillors. I’m sure they will want to push through some meaningful reforms, and I wish them well.

The clock is ticking for the Pakatan Rakyat state and local government. True, the people tolerated the BN’s nonsense (appointments of party loyalists to local councils) for decades. But the PR pledged to restore local government elections – and so they have a much shorter time frame to prove that they can do just that. They have to show they are working fast – and not wait until just before the next general election to make the appropriate noises.

Give the councils back to the people – not to corporate interests and not to political appointees.

LIVE COVERAGE: PM announces Judicial Commission, stops short of apology

2145: The announcement of an ex gratia payment/financial compensation has not gone down well with some of the lawyers present. There is some discussion at the dinner tables about whether it would look as if judges could be sacked and later paid off as a crude way of saying sorry. One of the lawyers asks a family member of one of the affected judges in 1988 whether the Prime Minister’s words were sufficient and the response is an emphatic “No”. Others among the lawyers say they understand Abdullah’s predicament. If he had given an outright apology, he would have come under fire from opponents within his party.

2120: Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has stopped short of an apology in his speech titled Delivering Justice, Renewing Trust. The PM says that in recognition of what the sacked judges endured in 1988 and their sacrifice, the government will make an ex gratia payment to them or to their families. He concedes that the level of trust in the judiciary is not as strong as before and says there is a need for built-in safeguards. He adds that he has taken a leap of faith by appointing an outspoken maverick as de facto law minister. Then the big news: the setting up of a commission for judicial appointments – not immediately, but in the pipeline. The salary scheme for judges will also be reviewed to attract the best legal minds to the profession.

2101: It is the PM’s turn now.

2051: Zaid Ibrahim addresses the dinner. He quotes tongue in cheek from the 1970 movie “Love Story”: “Love means never having to say you’re sorry…” Does he know what the PM is going to say?

2039: Bar Council president Ambiga is giving her speech. She acknowledges the PM’s role in loosening the tight grip on fundamental rights, a lawyer tells me. She also proposes that the original wording of Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution be restored. And she wants the PM to look into the plight of ISA detainees.

2035: PM Abdullah Badawi arrives.

2000: Present among the 650 guests are Wan Azizah, Lim Kit Siang, Koh Tsu Koon, Salleh Abas, Dzaiddin and other judges and family members affected by the 1988 judicial crisis. Gani Patail and Zaid Ibrahim are also in attendance.

1930: The Bar Council dinner, jointly organised with the government, at the Marriot Hotel in KL gets under way. Among the guests is Samy Vellu. Lawyers murmur among themselves, “What’s he doing here?”

1800: A Singapore Straits Times report earlier today says Abdullah Badawi is expected to announce major reforms: a Judicial Commission to appoint judges, greater independence for the judiciary, financial compensation to sacked judges, and an expression of regret. We shall see. The report, however, quotes former Court of Appeal judge V C George as saying, “‘An apology or expression of regret would be sweeping everything that happened 20 years ago under the carpet… We need an investigation into the events of 1988 and to expose the conspiracy and its conspirators.”

Why spend only RM4 million on trams when you can spend billions on mega projects

trams

The old tram tracks of George Town, freshly uncovered and preserved on Penang Road. Getting a basic tram service up and running will cost only RM4 million, says a consultant.

George Town once had a remarkable public transport system. It had these fascinating trams, which were affordable and people friendly.

Cities across the world, especially heritage cities, have found trams to be a cost-effective and reliable mode of transport. Some of the trams look really futuristic like those in Nottingham (please click this link to see what a modern tram looks like). Others blend in easily with the historical backdrop like some of those in Milan. Then there are variations such as the O-bahn in Adelaide.

Who says trams are old fashioned. This is a modern tram in Istanbul:

Now, imagine if we had this on the streets of Penang. The major advantage of trams is that they stop at street level, making it more accessible for passengers to hop on and off. Trams are suitable even in cities with narrow streets.

The Penang state government should speak to tram expert Ric Francis, who has been passionately advocating trams in Penang instead of a monorail. I attended a talk by Ric once and he was telling us how easy and inexpensive it was to get a tram system going in George Town. When the Jelutong Expressway was being constructed, he said it would be so easy to incorporate tram tracks along the highway.

It’s a real pity that no one who mattered was interested in listening to Ric. I wonder why – but then again, why build an inexpensive RM4 million tram system when you can spend billions building a monorail or a subway system. You know-lah why they like all those mega projects…

The Star
Thursday, 9 November 2006
by Emmeline Tan

Bring back trams

Keep the monorail out of George Town and bring back the trams for the sake of the environment and heritage.

Engineer Ric Francis, who has been in the tram industry for 38 years, said there were many pitfalls to the proposed RM1.2bil monorail system that would connect the entire Penang island.

“Once the huge monorail structures are built in George Town, the heritage buildings will be totally eclipsed.

“Trams on the other hand, provide a nice, quiet, scenic journey,” said Francis, co-author of Penang Trams, Trolleybuses and Railways – Municipal Transport History 1880s-1963.

COLONIAL TRANSPORT SYSTEM:Francis showing his book on Penang trams.

Giving a lecture at the Penang Heritage Trust at Church Street recently, Francis said George Town Municipal electrical trams used from 1905 to 1936 reaped high profits until World War I when the supply of replacement parts was hampered.

He estimated that less than RM3.8mil (US$1mil) was needed to get an electrical tram system up and running in George Town.

“Old tramlines such as from Prangin Mall to Weld Quay still exists underneath the bitumen road and can be restored for use,” he said.

A 50m tramline was unearthed at the Chulia Street-Penang Road junction in 2004 during road works and was preserved by the Penang Municipal Council.

“There are many second- hand trams in other countries that are for purchase.”

Existing street poles could be used to support the one-cable electrical wiring for trams, he added.

“Trams are pollution-free and are being used in cities with narrow roads such as Amsterdam and Lisbon.

“There would not be the high cost of diesel to pay, and very little maintenance of parts compared to buses.”

To me, a tram system is much more cost-effective and aesthetically pleasing than a monorail network, especially for a heritage city like George Town and surrounding areas and even in Butterworth and Prai. The tram system could link up to a cross-channel light rail service alongside the Penang Bridge. Together with an expanded ferry service, an improved bus system, safe cycling paths and more pedestrian walkways, trams could transform Penang into a model city for sustainable public transport, besides enhancing George Town’s heritage setting and its quality of life.

Let me sign off with a lovely song (‘Peace Train’) by Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), who was inspired to write this while on a train.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sjSHazjrWg&hl=en&rel=0]

Ten reasons why the second Penang bridge is not a great idea

Controversial second bridge: The site at Batu Kawan on the mainland as it looks now

  1. It will add to traffic congestion on the island. Even with an additional third lane, the existing Penang Bridge is expected to become congested again in a few years. That’s the rationale given for building a new bridge. But then, what will happen to the roads on Penang Island with all that traffic coming in? Green Lane and Scotland Road are already congested with no room for further widening. Has an independent EIA and traffic study – analysing the impact on surrounding areas and roads on the mainland and the island – been carried out for this project?
  2. We should be moving away from private vehicle transport and turning to public transport, not spending more money on infrastructure for private cars.
  3. Higher global oil prices costs will burden bridge users, what more if the bridge is more than 22-24km (17km over water) long. Oil prices will rise even further in coming years while Malaysia will become a net importer of oil in a few years.
  4. Toll charges on the second bridge are likely to be much higher than the RM7 on the existing bridge (a rate of RM9.40 has been mentioned), bearing in mind that the proposed bridge is over twice as long as the Penang Bridge. How many regular bridge users will be able to afford the higher toll and petrol charges?
  5. Higher toll rates on the new bridge will lead to hikes in the existing Penang Bridge toll (from RM7.00 to RM9.40 and no more 20 per cent discount for Touch ‘n’ Go users?) and ferry fares. (If the Penang Bridge toll and ferry fare is lower, few people will want to use the new bridge.)
  6. That would mean the tolls for the existing Penang Bridge will continue indefinitely even though the cost of the bridge has been recovered many, many times over.
  7. In July 2007, the estimated cost of the second bridge was RM2.7 billion. By October/November 2007, it had crept up to RM3 billion. By January 2008, it was between RM3 billion and RM4 billion. And now, it is at about RM4.3 billion! How much will the final cost come to upon completion of the bridge? (An expert familiar with bridge building told me that the cost of materials for a new bridge, based on the estimated built area, would quite likely be less than RM1 billion. So how do we get RM4.3 billion? Can we have a breakdown of this figure?) How were the contracts awarded to a joint-venture comprising China Harbour Engineering Corp, a unit of the state-owned China Communications Construction Group (CCCG), and United Engineers Malaysia Bhd, also a state-controlled company? The lack of open tenders could lead to inflated contract estimates. Penangites could end up saddled with the cost of the bridge and higher tolls for years to come while the toll revenues go to UEM/Putrajaya. The people of Penang could well have to stump out many times the cost of the new bridge in tolls, just as they have for the existing bridge. And what is the additional cost of making the bridge resistant to major earthquakes?
  8. The new bridge is likely to hurt the fishing industry in the southeast of the island, where fisher folks are already complaining about drastically reduced catches as a result of land reclamation. A Bernama report on 17 January said that the start of the second Penang bridge project had been delayed as the state government wanted to resolve several matters involving fishermen as well as fish and cockle breeders who would be affected by the project. Former chief minister Koh Tsu Koon said the project could affect the livelihood of 1,500 fishermen and the breeders, who were worried the project could threaten the area’s ecosystem. Will this deplete fish stocks and lead to higher seafood prices in Penang, making it affordable only to the elite? Has a study been done on the impact of the bridge on fisheries in the state?
  9. The money spent on the bridge would be better spent on quality public transport, social housing (instead of creating more high-rise slums), public health care and schools.
  10. The projected carbon footprint, the increased traffic, and the impact on global warming of this project is likely to be enormous. How many tons of raw material including metal, concrete, cable, electricity and fuel will be consumed in the construction of the bridge?

Building new roads and bridges to cope with congestion is not a viable long-term solution. Such infrastructure will rapidly get congested again, and then we are back to square one. There is a limit to the road surface area that Penang Island can take. And how much will all this cost in the long run and how will it affect the quality of life when more and wider roads are built, eating up precious green spaces?

So what is the alternative?

If at all a third link (the ferry service and the Penang Bridge are the first two) is necessary, how about a light rail link parallel to the existing Penang Bridge? This would encourage people to use public transport to commute between the island and the mainland.

This rail link could be connected by buses/trams/light rail to industrial areas and urban centres on the island and on the mainland.

The ferry services should be expanded. Bangkok makes full use of river transport, but Penang has not tapped the full potential of sea-based public transport. More ferry terminals should be set up at different points of the island and on the mainland so that ferries can criss-cross the channel instead of being confined to the Butterworth-George Town route. Buses and trams at the ferry terminals could shuttle people to their ultimate destinations.

What do you think?

The Hanging Flowerpots of Butterworth

bworth phone booth
Unnecessary structures: Flimsy covered phone booths that fell apart soon after being installed

butterworth lamppost

Weird and tacky lamp-posts: Each lamp-post had the letters MPSP up in lights! Notice the hooks where flower pots once hung (you can just about see the hooks below the four lamps). What they didn’t factor in was what a tough job watering the plants would be! I guess they simply gave up on watering them and all the plants probably died a slow death. Today the “Hanging Flowerpots of Butterworth” are history. (Reminds me of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon!) Wonder who got the contract to supply these lamp-posts.

I am not surprised that the Seberang Perai Municipal Coucil is almost broke. Over the years, they have indulged in all kinds of “beautification projects” costing hundreds of thousands of ringgit while the basics such as proper drains for the whole town were neglected.

In the name of “beautification”, they put new pavements in – only to dig them up several years later and replace them with newer pavements, in many places where people hardly walked. They put up all kinds of weird structures – especially tacky, ornamental street lamp-posts and dim pavement lighting for pedestrians. These pedestrian lights were largely unnecessary because they were usually in places where people hardly walked at night or they were near the main street lights, so that the additional light provided was minimal.

At about the same time, they put up these flimsy covered phone booths all over town, which started falling apart even before the phones could be installed!

There was a beautiful green space in town, the padang – but then they erected this enormous dewan named after Abdullah Badawi’s father. You can see a bit of it on the right of the lamp-post above. Sadly, the field is I believe no longer big enough for the football league matches that were once played there, and which were avidly watched by some Butterworth residents.

Almost all the recreational spaces in Butterworth have been lost. The tennis court next to the padang is no more. It has been converted to an artificial rock garden and pond with fountains, which few people actually visit. The entire beach front along Butterworth is not easily accessible to the public now, no thanks to the Butterworth Outer Ring Road. And then they wonder why the youth turn to unhealthy activities. Where are the open recreational spaces for them in town? Where are the parks?

True, they planted lots of trees and shrubs, so that Butterworth today looks a lot greener – but how much did all those trees and shrubs cost? And what about those huge flowerpots on the road dividers?

Meanwhile, the main drains of Butterworth, outside the town centre, remain in horrible condition with stagnant water, aggravated by haphazard ad hoc construction of drains by property developers.

The amount of public money wasted on “beautification” projects over the years has been scandalous. And all the while, urban pioneers in “squatter” settlements lived in deplorable conditions not far away until many of them were evicted to make way for “development”.

Hardly anyone in Butterworth knew who their town councillors were; nor did they know who was responsible for such extravagant expenditure.

Butterworth is a prime example of why we need to bring back local council elections – and fast.

Penang to make auditor’s findings public, says Lim
By DERRICK VINESH
derrickvinesh@thestar.com.my

BUTTERWORTH: The findings of the private auditor into the financial status of Seberang Prai Municipal Council (MPSP), whose reserves fell from RM229mil in 2000 to just RM25.6mil at the end of 2007, will be made public.

Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said the public had the right to know how the council’s reserves had come down.

“If the municipal council had built a lapangan terbang (airport) here, perhaps we can understand.

“But, there is no lapangan terbang and yet the money could terbang (fly),” he said.

Lim said those who were not involved in any mishandling of funds need not fear as the auditing process was merely aimed at improving the council’s performance.

“But the guilty ones who took public money and became very rich will be investigated,” he said when opening Bagan Dalam assemblyman A. Tanasekharan’s service centre in Jalan Bagan Luar here yesterday.

He said the new state government was worried the council would be broke by the end of the year.

Lim said many expected the new state government to continue helping the people with big projects, but that would not be possible when there were no more reserves.

“If there are disasters, we will definitely help the people. But to come up with projects, we must look at our financial situation first,” he said.

On April 1, state Local Government Committee chairman Chow Kon Yeow said the council, with an accumulated deficit of RM226mil over the last eight years, had been scraping the bottom of the barrel.

On April 4, former councillor Datuk Dr Loga Bala Mohan said large portions of the council’s reserves were spent on the State Stadium in Batu Kawan (RM110mil), the council’s headquarters (RM83mil), Dewan Milenium (RM24mil) and the Central Seberang Prai district sports complex (RM12.8mil).

Penang Consumer Protection Association president K. Koris said the council could have retained high reserves if it had asked for federal funds to build its headquarters and a district sports complex.

Sungai Dua assemblyman Datuk Jasmin Mohamed called for the council to tutup kedai (close shop) and hand over its duties to the state government if it was incapable of handling its finances.

He said the council’s land administrative duties should also be surrendered to the three district offices in Seberang Prai…

LIVE COVERAGE of the Penang Forum

penang forum

People in the new Penang now feel more empowered in the struggle for justice

4.30pm – The world is watching civil society in Malaysia, which is blossoming and acting as real agents of change. “I’m enthralled by the response of you participants who have stayed on the whole day,” concludes Ahmad Chik, the moderator for the final session, thumping the table with satisfaction.

The participants of various ethnic and religious backgrounds, young and old, adopt a Penang Forum declaration for submission to the state government. Enthusiastic participants are signing up for various working committees, which will work on specific issues and come up with papers within three months. For the first time in years, many feel empowered and think they can make a difference.

4.00pm – Francis Loh points out that without local council elections, there is no mechanism to hold local councils accountable.

The Local Govt Elections Act 1960, Sec 5A (1) allows state governments in consultation with EC to hold local council elections. But the Local Government Act 1976 states that “all provisions relating to local government elections cease to have force or effect.” Still, Section 1A says the state authority may exempt any area within any local authority from the provisions of the LGA.

The Penang State Assembly can then introduce an enactment to revive local government elections. Or work towards amending the LGA in parliament to allow local government elections to be revived.

In the past, councillors (numbering 8-24 in all) were political appointees (largely male) and ultimately responsible to the state govt. Thus, the state was able to dictate the local govt agenda. The role of council president is critical but unfortunately, there has been no accountability.

Pending the reintroduction of council elections, there should be fair representation of women and other independent representatives. To promote accountability, council meetings should be made open to the public and the media. Similarly, committee meetings on land development, transport and environment matters, financial matters and tenders should also be open. Non-performing and corrupt councillors must be removed and detailed financial statements be made public.

NGOs can pursue partnerships with the new State Govt and hold regular meetings with the CM or Exco.

A restructuring of local govt in Penang is needed. Maybe there should be two councils on the island – one in Balik Pulau perhaps – and more than one on the mainland. Currently, less attention is given to the western side of the island and southern Prai.

Anwar Fazal suggests a whole new mechanism of neighbourhood councils, which would also build a community spirit. The role of public health inspectors should be expanded to look at public health as a total concept. New kinds of civil servants are needed to liaise with neighbourhood councils.

One participant requests that the city status of George Town be restored, receiving loud applause from the floor. Another adds that we should also push for an elected mayor.

S P Choong points out that massive development projects require that objections be accepted only from immediate neighbours – when the impact is felt in a much larger area. Moreover, no reason need be given for rejecting objections from neighbouring residents.

Francis stresses that one big way to deepen democracy is to decentralise decision-making. Local democracy would be a significant step in this direction.

Lin Lee suggests that the new state government review some of the contracts for services that had been contracted out to the federal level.

A librarian proposes a Freedom of Information Act.

The tempo is picking up. People are now queuing up at the mike to raise questions and comment on:

– public security

– the possibility of publishing a Penang Reader

– the need for civil society groups to link up with other groups in the Pakatan states

– the need to lobby MPs to reform immigration policies relating to migrant labour and refugees

– the importance of reducing garbage – more recycling is needed

– how health tourism is diverting resources from the public sector and worsening the unfair two-tier health care system

1.30pm – A university student spells out what is wrong with education. According to the THES ranking, Malaysian universities have been slipping off the radar of the world’s top universities. She highlights the impact of the University and University Colleges Act. Students are humans too (!) and therefore should be granted full human rights. The UUCA forbids students from saying or doing anything “which may be construed as expressing support, sympathy or opposition to any political party or trade union or as expressing support or sympathy with any unlawful organization, body or group of persons”. Lecturers too have to sign an Aku Janji pledge but dozens have refused.

She also speaks out against the corporatisation of universities, which has displaced academic culture with corporate culture. In its place has emerged a corporate and bureaucratic culture. Universities have begun to seek new sources of funding, introducing twinning programmes and raising student intakes. Students have been turned into products catering to the market.

12.59pm – A spirited Lim Kah Cheng draws loud applause when she suggests tax reforms to allow the state governments more say in deciding how our tax money is spent.

She explains that the politically correct term for disabled persons is persons with disabilities (PWDs). The ‘person’ comes first. Their actually needs are the same as the rest of us: quality education, decent incomes, leisure activities, the right to raise families, shopping and paying bills. But we tend to forget about them. We need a paradigm shift: PWDs need their rights promoted. Obstacles to access opportunities must be removed.

What is good for them is good for everyone e.g. ramps, lifts, bigger toilets, signages, larger print, disabled friendly public transport. A by-law in forces since 1993 requires all buildings to provide disabled access. Planning should be inclusive in its design and conception.

12.14pm – Kris Khaira then touches on workers’ issues. He highlights how the government has over the years been weakening the trade union movement. Workers who are active in unions can sometimes find themselves harassed by management.

One of the demands is three months’ maternity leave and one month paternity leave. The other demand is RM900 minimum wage and RM300 cost of living allowance and not more than 40 hours work a week. Jerit, an NGO coalition, has suggested a retrenchment fund should be set up with contributions from both employer (RM1 per worker) and employee (RM0.50). Alternative housing is also needed by retrenched plantation workers.

The same policies should be extended to migrant workers, who must be given the same rights.

11.46am – After animated conversations over the coffee break, the forum resumes. Many among the 150 participants, of diverse background and ethnic origins, are eager to speak and air their views. The next presenter, Prema Devaraj, calls on the state government to respond to the needs of women especially the protection of women and children.

We must ensure the full and equitable participation of women in the economy. Affordable facilities for child care are needed. Pay equity, flexibility of hours, a code of practice against sexual harassment and a minimum wage are needed. Training is also necessary to upgrade skills and empower women. A committee should also look into the rights of women migrant workers including domestic workers.

10.59am – Lin Lee briefs the audience on the world heritage listing for Penang. The application that has been submitted is titled “Historic Cities of the Straits: Malacca and George Town”.

She lists the advantages of a heritage listing: economic returns/appreciation in value, new business opportunities, increase in tourists, and prestige.

Conservation is needed to the protect heritage values and preserve cultural significance for present and future generations. Unesco requires a heritage management plan.

Threats arising from a heritage listing: tremendous development pressure, population pressure, environment pressure, and uncontrolled tourism.

Participation of and and benefit for local communities is critical. Local communities should be empowered and should enjoy the tangible benefits.

One participant brings to attention the importance of public libraries, which should be an essential component for cultural strategies.

10.40am – Tan Sooi Beng then speaks on the arts in Penang. Penang has rich and diverse cultures with home-grown singers, actors, and poets. We need to support the arts as it creates a sense of identity and social and political expression. It will have a positive impact on the youth. A culturally vibrant place can attract professionals to work in Penang.

But there is a lack of performance venues and rehearsal spaces, high rental costs and last-minute cancellations. Too many permits and high deposits. More arts events and festivals are needed featuring diverse cultural groups to bring audiences together and to provide space for local artistes to perform.

Himanshu Bhatt says there is no dearth of cultural facilities going on but what is required is more publicity for these events.

10.30am – A priority now is to do everything possible now to make subsidised public transport system like Rapid Penang work, says S P Choong.

One participant suggests that the second bridge be a dedicated light rail link to start from Butterworth and Prai and end up near the outskirts of George Town with a good bus feeder system. He says that the ferry service should be expanded rather than reduced as it is a delightful and practical way to commute.

Perhaps another possibility is an integrated subway system between the island and mainland, says another, while a third participant wonders how there can be a shift in the mindset of Penangites to turn to public transport.

Another argues that the taxi service should be improved with the use of meters enforced so that more people will be encouraged to use this mode of transport.

Lin Lee recommends the O-bahn system found in Adelaide. It uses ordinary roads with a special fleet of buses. As it exits the city it uses an electrical rail system on river embankments. And it is cost efficient.

10.14am – One academic says we should also consider the rural situation and the situation in Seberang Prai in the forum.

9.56am – Dr S P Choong now talks about traffic snarls in Penang. Public transport should be an essential public service and subsidies are needed. What we need is a pro-public transport environment.

Penangites are car-dependent because it is a necessity. It is a necessity because there is a planning culture framed by a mindset which feels that public transport will never come. So there is a pro-car environment, streets are widened, pedestrian walkways are narrowed, one-way streets introduced. It is dangerous to even cycle. Penang has one of the highest vehicle ownership per capita in Malaysia – higher than Singapore and it is rising 10 per cent annually.

9.45am – Why are their so many high-end apartments in Tanjong Bunga – for foreigners, wonders a Penangite.

What can ordinary Penangites do to preserve the environment? How was Singapore able to provide open spaces for 4 million people? Penang Island has only 700,000 residents. One possibility is to turn unused back-lanes in housing areas into green spaces.

9.40am – The people of Penang have to guide the new state government about their priorities, says a member from the floor. But only critical issues should be brought to their attention for immediate action, says another.

9.30am – Leong Yueh Kwong presents some of the serious environmental problems in Penang: the impact of land reclamation, hill slope development, the closure of beaches to the public. He also points out that there is a lack of recreational spaces in Penang.

9.15am – Ahmad Chik opens the Penang Forum, highlighting the role of NGOs and how they came together for last year’s Pesta Rakyat Merdeka. They also successfully opposed the Penang Global City Centre project. But the biggest breakthrough was the result of the 8 March general election, which has given many Penangites real hope that meaningful reforms are possible. There is a buzz of anticipation in the air among the 150 participants as the forum gets underway.

Abad Naluri chairman quits; game over for Patrick

Just heard from a reliable source that Dato Sri Kamal Hashim, the chairman of Abad Naluri, has resigned from his position with immediate effect.

Kamal Hashim is presently the northern region director of The Star, which gave the launch of the PGCC by the prime minister last year prominent coverage.

It is also believed that the Prime Minister and his family are now distancing themselves from Patrick Lim, whose dealings exposed the BN to stinging criticism in the run-up to the general election – from opposition parties as well as from Mahathir.

Abad Naluri is the developer of the controversial PGCC project and was supposed to sign an agreement to buy and develop 300 acres of land in Batu Kawan as a replacement race-course for the Penang Turf Club.

These deals have been shrouded in controversy, and it is widely believed that powerful vested interests were the driving force behind them. In particular, the Penang state government has been asked to probe deeper and find out how Abad Naluri could end up buying 750 acres of prime land right next to the site of the proposed second bridge for Penang.

So who was really behind these land deals? As at October last year, the directors of Abad Naluri were Patrick Lim, Md Isahak bin Md Yusuf, Kamal Mohamed Hashim bin Che Din and Chin Pei Fung.

While much has been said of Patrick Lim’s interest in the PGCC, this could be a red herring as his Taman Equine firm only has a 25 per cent stake in the PGCC developer, Abad Naluri Sdn Bhd.

So who are the other major shareholders of Abad Naluri, which had an issued capital of only RM519,867? A company search revealed that the firm’s other main shareholders were Syed Jalaludin bin Syed Salim (Prof Tan Sri Dato’ Dr) (24 per cent) stake and Aneka Mayang Sdn Bhd (46 per cent). The rest were mainly small Chinese Malaysian shareholders holding 100 shares each.

Now let’s look at Abad Naluri’s biggest shareholder, Aneka Mayang Sdn Bhd. Surprise, surprise, Aneka Mayang is a RM2 company! One share each is held by, yes, Syed Jalaludin again and the other by Idris bin Denan. Imagine, a RM2 company has a 46 per cent interest in Abad Naluri, which in turn was supposed to undertake the RM25 billion PGCC project! Only in Malaysia…

Any of these individuals and firms could be proxies for other more powerful interests.

Although the end of the PGCC project is nigh, this does not mean we are going to get a People’s Park in Batu Gantong tomorrow.

For, would you believe it, certain members of the Turf Club are now salivating at the prospect of making a tidy profit from “developing” the Batu Gantung land for private gain.

A prominent member has circulated a proposal which would involve members buying the 259-acre plot of land from the Turf Club for RM488 million.

Under the proposal, the members would allocate 180 acres out of the 259 acres for property development. Basically, they want to build 581 bungalows (each 7,000-8,000 sq ft) and sell them to the members at RM100 sq ft. (The Turf Club has 581 members.) They also want to build a further 140 bungalows for sale to the public at RM200 sq ft.

Incidentally, the market value of the land is now around 250 sq ft.

Under this proposal, the profit from this property development would be RM115 million, which would be donated to charity. (But the members would already profit from buying the bungalows at a discounted price of only RM100 sg ft, which means each member would in effect make a cool unrealised profit of around RM1 million on top of the RM20,000 they had earlier received.)

The proposal also involves the members handing over the unused 79 acres as “open space” for a public park to the Penang state government. Wah, so generous! But hang on a minute – this “open space” is actually hill land and cemetery land (which cannot be developed in the first place) for crying out loud. Now I wonder how many people fancy strolling around hill-slopes and tombstones for their leisurely morning and evening walks.

Imagine, whoever came up with this hare-brained, land-grabbing proposal dares to call it a “win-win situation for all parties concerned”.

Let’s be clear. The land does not belong to individual Turf Club members so that they can profit from it. It was handed over to the Penang Turf Club by the State in 1935 for recreational use. The only reason we got into this mess is that the previous state government, with the connivance of vested interests, re-zoned this land to “mixed development”. It is time the new state government put a stop to this nonsense of certain quarters eyeing this precious green lung and wanting to “develop” it for personal profit. The land and surrounding areas should remain a heritage enclave and the only way that can happen is if the new state government re-zones the land back to its original status as “recreational” and turns it into a permanent People’s Park.

That should keep away the greedy vultures, now circling in the air while eyeing the carcass of the still-born PGCC below.

Karpal, Mahathir exchange letters on 1988 judicial crisis

On 27 March 2008, the MP for Bukit Gelugor, Karpal Singh, wrote to former premier Mahathir about the 1988 judicial crisis. “It is not the present Government which should apologise, but you yourself personally,” wrote Karpal. “Your culpability in the events leading to the dismissal of these three judges cannot have any justification in law or otherwise.”

“The necessity for you to apologise cries to high heaven. Your acts caused the judges concerned and their families untold pain and suffering.”

Karpal said he was writing to find out whether Mahathir was prepared to tender an unqualified and unconditional apology to Salleh Abas, George Seah and the family of the late Wan Suleiman Pawanteh, “who was one of the finest judges the judiciary ever had”.

It is imperative that the spirit of Wan Suleiman be appeased, he added. “This is the least you can do in your lifetime to atone for your actions for what transpired twenty years ago.

In an extraordinary letter to Karpal on 3 April 2008, Mahathir responded with guns blazing:

YB Mr Karpal Singh

Member of Parliament, Bukit Gelugor

Yang berhormat

Thank you for your letter.

You and my other detractors will never believe me whatever I may say. You are moved by pure hatred and I cannot respond to people who can never accept reality.

My conscience is clear. I have done what was my duty and I owe nobody any apology. I am sure you will make use of this letter to dirty my name further. That is your right. I think you are the most contemptible of politicians and individuals.

Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad

Karpal responded today in a press statement:

I stand by what I have stated in my letter. I refer, in particular, to the last paragraph of Dr Mahathir’s letter where he calls me “the most contemptible of politicians and individuals.”

As Dr Mahathir is much older to me, I do not propose to hurt his feelings in the vein by which he has described me.

I would advise Dr Mahathir to take my views in his stride. I assure him I don’t hate him.

Karpal Singh

Ordinary Malaysians can gauge for themselves Mahathir’s role in this whole sordid affair.

Why not let Tun Salleh provide an eye-witness account of what transpired. This account is based on his private notes and was reproduced in Aliran Monthly, soon after his dismissal in 1988:

When I arrived at the Prime Minister’s Department I was met by a policeman who took me by lift to a waiting room. After waiting for about two or three minutes, I was shown into the Prime Minister’s Office by an officer, whom I did not recognise. There I found YAB Perdana Menteri (then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad) seated at his table with YAB Encik Ghafar Baba, Timbalan Perdana Menteri (then deputy prime minister) and Tan Sri Sallehuddin Mohamed, Ketua Setiausaha Negara (the then chief secretary to the government) seated at the same table opposite the Prime Minister. When I entered the room I gave the Prime Minister and the others my salam very loudly and he replied my salam. (Peace be on You).

After I had taken my seat, the Prime Minister told me that he had an unpleasant duty to perform and on being asked what it was, he replied that he had been asked by (the then) DYMM Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Di Pertuan Agong to tell me that I should step down. I then expressed my surprise in an Islamic way saying “Glory to God, who is free from any partnership.” Then I asked him for the reasons and in reply he said that he was not prepared to argue with me, but finally he said the reason was that I had written a letter to DYMM Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Di Pertuan Agong regarding the state of relationship between the Judiciary and the Executive. I told him that I wrote the letter simply because Judges, at a meeting on 25 March 1988, had informed me that they were very concerned about the present situation and asked to express their views through me. YAB Perdana Menteri then said that I made speeches indicating that I am biased and I am not qualified to sit in UMNO cases. I told him that I said nothing of that and the speeches I had made only dealt with the criticisms levelled at the Judiciary. I am not at all biased or bipartisan in political matters. While all this was going on, YAB Encik Ghafar Baba kept his head down while Tan Sri Sallehuddin was writing in a note book, which he was then holding.

When finally I said I would not resign, he told me that if I stepped down I would be given everything that I was entitled to. I told him that I was entitled to nothing since I was not yet 60. Obviously, he was surprised when told I was not 60 yet. Finally, he said that if I did not step down he would institute a Judicial Tribunal with a view to removing me. I told him I would not resign because if I did, I could not show my face to anyone and I might as well die.

He said that I could see the Agong if I wanted to and he would not stop me from doing so.

I told him that I would not be resigning and he could do what he pleased with me, including going ahead with the Tribunal. As there was nothing else to discuss, I finally said “Datuk, I should not waste anybody’s time”, and I shook his hand, also Encil Ghafar Baba’s and Tan Sri Sallehuddin’s. None of these three looked me right in my face and I could detect Encik Ghafar Baba was strangely silent and Tan Sri Sallehuddin only caught me by the side of his eyes but he too appeared to be subdued.

The Prime Minister himself, from the beginning to the end, did not even look me in the eye. He was looking down at his table all the time.

I left his room and I only saw one policeman outside his room who appeared surprised to see me there. When I went downstairs there was nobody even to see me off and no one called for my driver. I had to go out to look for my driver.

My future is tied up with the fate of this country. I come from an unknown family and I have reached the top of my profession. I have no desire to leave until I have reached the age of 65 like my predecessors, except the Sultan of Perak, who vacated the job because of a call of duty to be the Ruler of Perak. I leave my fate to the judgment of Allah and as it is Friday, I wish to quote the Quran, which says, “No misfortune will fall on us except what has been decreed by Allah. He is our protector and in whom the believers should place their trust.” This passage from the Quran struck my heart as I entered the door of the Prime Minister’s Office and it remained with me during the course of our discussion till the end, and to my exit from his room.

You be the judge!