By Stephanie Jacob
In the second part of our series on the controversial RM6.3 billion Penang tunnel and highway project, we talk about the basic objections against the project by environmental and civil society groups. Not only are they miffed about the project, they are upset over how the state government and Penang chief minister Lim Guan Eng have reacted to their objections.
If you are dealing with a RM6.3 billion project on a small congested island while having to contend with partisan politics – there are going to be disagreements and disputes between the parties involved along the way and it is probably safe to say that Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and his state government expected some of it.
Mohd Idris
Whether they expected it to be this loud, clear and sustained is another matter. Some of the quarters that it is coming from may also have been unexpected. Furthermore, it is no longer just criticism of the proposed project; increasingly it has morphed into displeasure at the way that the Penang state government has responded to the criticism.
SM Mohd Idris of the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) and Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) for one, has reacted angrily to thinly veiled suggestions coming out of the state government’s camp, which seem to suggest that those in disagreement were criticising at the behest of Barisan Nasional or with their own personal agendas in mind rather than in Penang and her peoples best interest.
What this suggestion fails to capture however is that some of the loudest and strongest criticism is in fact coming from groups that are usually behind the Guan Eng led state government. Nonetheless, they believe that their concerns are legitimate and are determined to share them with whomever will listen. But just what are some of the key concerns of these NGO’s and civil society groups?
Why the rush?
This project ran into controversy very early, when a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed on the same week as the announcement that the state would be launching a detailed study to formulate a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) was made. Almost immediately, suggestions of jumping the gun were levelled.
Michael Lim Mah Hui
“The whole process is concerning – the fact that the MoU was signed on the same week the Transportation Master Plan studies were begun. Followed by the project tender being awarded before the TMP was completed,” says Lim Mah Hui, a member of the Penang Steering Committee of the Penang Forum.
However if the state government were affected by this criticism, they did not show it when they went ahead and awarded the tender to Consortium Zenith BUCG Sdn Bhd without first completing feasibility studies or environmental impact assessments.
The decision to launch a TMP was commendable, as it showed that the state government wanted to base state policies on scientific analysis and evidence – but then it proceeded to seemingly pre-empt the report’s findings by awarding the tender before the TMP was even completed. The state government needs to address the rather concerning question of why it decided to award these projects before the TMP had even been completed and offered for public scrutiny, he adds.
The lack of feasibility studies and a detailed environmental impact assessment has also irked others opposing the project. Professor Jimmy Lim, President of the Penang Citizens Awareness Chant Group (Chant) says he believes that the MPPP’s (Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang) rigorous tender system seems to have been disregarded, and questions why it has been so difficult to access information on the tender process and the project in general.
In a letter released by Chant to the press, the group reiterated these concerns and called for the state government to make “publicly available all the tender documents and acceptances and the decisions of the tender award, consistent with its CAT (competency, accountability and transparency) policy and the Freedom of Information Act.”
“The Penang government has made pledges when they took over, such as the CAT pledge…unless they show some transparency we will continue to be suspicious,” says Professor Lim.
More roads are not the answer
Detractors of the project have also questioned the state government’s belief that these major road based projects are “critically needed to alleviate congestion within the local road network,” as was claimed during a public dialogue session in early March. The state government drew on the examples of Singapore and Kuala Lumpur with their extensive road networks to justify this.
Lim Mah Hui doesn’t see it that way, and points out that despite having large road networks, cities like Kuala Lumpur are known to suffer from traffic congestion. While emphasising that he is not against improving the road system and that some extensions are necessary to divert traffic from the city centre; what must be considered is both the supply and demand for the roads, he says.
He explains that there are two sides to building a massive road network – the supply side and the demand side. Simply fulfilling the supply side by building more roads will not solve the problem, because it will create a demand to use these road networks. With the rate of vehicles on the road growing at 10 percent a year, Penang will have one million cars on the road in 10 years and these new roads will all be congested again. There is simply no way to supply enough roads to satisfy the demand, concludes Lim.
Anil Netto
Anil Netto an activist and journalist, agrees saying that building highways and a road-based tunnel is at best an expensive short-term solution. In his blog, he asks what will happen when these news roads become congested. He gives the examples of the current road networks, saying “the Jelutong Expressway itself is rapidly filling up – and that is even before the second Penang bridge is completed! Similarly, the Penang Bridge, with a new additional lane, is becoming increasingly congested. So too the highway on the mainland leading to the Sungai Dua toll booth.” More roads he says will simply facilitate more dependency on private motor vehicles, bringing the state back to square one.
This is not a 21st century solution
Netto also suggests that a road centric transportation plan will take “Penang backwards to the 1970s, when highways were seen as symbols of progress.”
He highlights that the reality of the 21st century is climate change, fossil fuel depletion and higher fuel prices – all problems which are likely to increase with more private motor vehicles coming onto the roads. Furthermore he says, the pollution that will be created as a result will have lasting negative effects on the environment – going against the Penang government’s vision of a greener state.
The TMP he says, shows that the people want a public-transport-based solution rather than a highway-based one. Although acknowledging the fact that the Penang government is restricted when it comes to developing public transport without the support of the federal government, Netto asks why the state government is rushing to “tie itself to a highway-based solution instead of promising better public transport if it captures Putrajaya?” He suggests it would be better to give the people of Penang a comprehensive public transportation plan in order to win a strong mandate.
Lim Guan Eng
Don’t take advantage of goodwill
Netto also questioned Lim Guan Eng’s decision to tie this issue to his re-election campaign, saying that the Chief Minister is taking advantage of the goodwill of Penangites and their dissatisfaction of the BN government to force through an unpopular project.
“People are voting against the BN because…they want cleaner, more accountable government – not because they love highways and ridiculously priced houses and apartments!” he emphasises.
“The state needs to show more humility”
There has also been deep dissatisfaction among the NGO’s and civil society groups over what they see as the state government’s attempts to attack them rather than their arguments.
“The state needs to show more humility when dealing with criticism and not resort to juvenile attacks and accusations against those who are voicing their opinions,” said Professor Jimmy Lim who has in the past been accused by members of the state exco of having a personal axe to grind with the state and local council (Lim’s contract as a consultant architect on another project was terminated by MPPP after it was decided that he had failed to perform his consulting duties) .
It is a sentiment echoed by SM Mohamed Idris, the president of both CAP and SAM who reacted angrily to statements from Lim Guan Eng that seemed to suggest the independence of some the groups might be questionable and implied that they might be aligned to BN.
“CAP would like to emphasise that our comments and criticism of policies and projects are made solely in the public interest and not designed to advance any political or party interest…those who hold public office must always be prepared to accept public criticisms,” said Idris in a strongly worded statement made in reply to Lim.
In the face of all this criticism, Lim Guan Eng and his team have still stuck to their guns. While saying he welcomed the feedback, Guan Eng has stated that he believes that he has the trust and the support of the majority Penangites behind him. He also has said that much of the criticism comes from a lack of facts.
Yesterday: Light at the end of the tunnel?
Tomorrow: The land-swap deal and the economics of the project
Friday: Lim Guan Eng says why he is so determined to stand by this project even at the risk of it costing him support in the approaching general election.
You must be logged in to post a comment.