I received this commentary by email last night. I was told that Rehda Selangor has had a meeting after The Sun published that news report yesterday.
When I read The Sun today, I found that the paper did not carry the response of Rehda Selangor but it published another article by Nadeswaran on hillslope development that whacked me and the Selangor government.
I am very surprised with the way The Sun handles this issue, looks like the editor concerned just want Nadeswaran’s views to be published and they disregard other opinions.
Is this the spirit of fairness and impartiality in their reporting?
I remember in the past, whenever Lim Kit Siang was whacked by main stream media and when he rebutted the editor on certain issue, New Straits Times always made a point to carry some of his dissenting views.
While we are fighting for free press and freedom of speech, one should also learn to respect dissenting views and learn to listen to people who disagree with us.
Is The Sun worse than NST in terms of the practice and spirit of journalism?
**********************************************
Response of Rehda Selangor
I think it is erroneous for the Sun to report that REHDA is pressuring the Selangor state government to reverse its policy on hillslope developments. REHDA was invited to attend a meeting with the MB and some of the EXCO members to present to the state government what REHDA believes are the problems facing the industry. Among the issues discussed was that of banning developments on class 3 and class 4 hillslope lands. The MB, who chaired the meeting, did not promise to lift the ban on hillslope developments. What he did commit was that he will convene a dialogue between the developers and environmentalists and NGOs to find a solution to this issue.
I was at the meeting and I believe REHDA presented a rational argument at the meeting. How convincing, we leave it to the wisdom of the state government to decide. We strongly believe that class 3 and even some class 4 lands can be successfully developed. There are ample examples of that all over the world. Such developments, we believe, add character to the overall development of cities.
At the meeting, we acknowledged the need to address the safety issues that confront hill lope developments. We believe this can be solved. We have the technology to address this aspect of hillslope development. It may be more costly, and that is why houses constructed on hillslopes are more costly. Even so, there is demand for such houses which fetch a premium for the characteristics that come with such developments.
On the issue of environmental preservation, whether we develop on hillslope or flat land, the environment is bound to be disturbed – unless we stop development all together. REHDA is conscious of the need to address this issue. We need to look at sustainable development. We need to take a holistic approach to development. The Malaysian population is growing at the rate of about 2 percent per annum. That means we are adding more than 500,000 people to the country every year and that involves building at least 125,000 houses every year to accommodate this growth. We may want to debate whether this population is sustainable, but that is the reality facing us. Selangor in particular, being the fastest growing state, will need to build 370,000 houses by 2015 to accommodate this growth. This is a daunting task.
Environmentalists of the world are now moving away from the narrow outmoded environmental view of development. REHDA would welcome further dialogue with environmentalists on the issues related to sustainable development. We would like to help address the issue of climate change. Banning hillslope developments per se will not solve all these problems. Instead, it may well add to the obstacles in bringing about sustainable development, especially in Selangor where more and more land available for development fall into the class 3 category. One may argue that there are still pockets of brownfield land and visible vacant flat land around, but these are not necessarily available for development, unless through compulsory acquisition. We may then incur the wrath of the human rightists.
On the issue of biodiversity, most of the land that developers build on are ex-plantation land. Therefore, the issue of fauna and flora lost to housing development on such type of land does not arise. More and more developers are conscious of the need to build environmentally friendly housing estates, including replanting and greening programs. If not, the market will eventually boot them out of business, as house buyers are becoming increasingly savvy and educated.
On the same issue of biodiversity, REHDA fully supports the government’s policy to gazette all forest reserves and all land demarcated as open space.
There are many collateral problems arising from a blanket ban on hillslope developments. Not only for developers who have spent hundreds of millions of ringgit to buy such land, but also for the thousands of smallholders who own such land that are now ripe for development. These smallholders will have their land value wiped out due to this policy. Available land for development is already scarce. By freezing development on hillslope land will make development land even scarcer, leading to higher land prices and hence higher costs for houses.
REHDA believes in a holistic and sustainable approach to development. Isolated policy change will not solve the complex issues that confront housing. As mentioned earlier REHDA welcomes dialogue with all the stakeholders, and it is our hope that this will lead to a better understanding of the issues relating to housing development.
Eddy Chen
Advisor
REHDA Selangor Branch
“There are many collateral problems arising from a blanket ban on hillslope developments. Not only for developers who have spent hundreds of millions of ringgit to buy such land, but also for the thousands of smallholders who own such land that are now ripe for development.”
So, it all boils down to money that has been invested in such land.
Before putting their money in, did they do any feasibility study to find out whether such land is safe for developement? Whose fault is it?
So, now that they found out that their land may not be suitable for developement, they are unlikely to take a loss but to do all in their power to forge ahead.
I have posted in an earlier article by Teresa and I reproduce it below:
“Hillslope development is allowed in Taiwan and China, Rehda members reasoned, and wanted to know why it is not allowed in Malaysia.”
That’s the question posed by REHDA.
I think that it is very surprising for this body to ask such a question!!
The answer is very, very simple.
In those countries a rocky hill or mountain contains a complete structure made up entirely of rocks.
In Malaysia, such terrian is made up of mud with huge boulders inside.
So, any structures built on steep slopes will be endangered if the mud is washed away by water, e.g. during heavy rain.
Building retaining walls are very often useless because what can the walls do when a huge boulder crash against it?
So, it’s a matter of pure common sense that no structures can be built on steep slopes in this country.
Perhaps our developers are blinded by greed but no responsible government will allow them to proceed because lives are involved! The lives of their customers!!
Perhaps REDHA can comment on the above.
I received this email from a resident in Ampang:
—–Lampiran Sebaris Menyusul—–
Dear Yang Berhormat,
I’m sorry to read of your frustration with the Sun article in your blog.As a resident of Ampang, I was very happy when we voted in the new Selangor state government.You see, we have been fighting irresponsible hillslope development in Ampang Hills for many years,and the pevious state government was not very helpful nor took much concern to our despair.Therefore, I was quite taken aback too when I read the article.And pray that we made the right choice last March 2008.
It is easy for an ‘association’ or ‘developer’ to say hillslope development is safe, they have the technology, blah blah.
They are talking very generally and in the broadest sense.Well, we the residents have seen many landslides after heavy rainfall, destruction of properties, and worst of all, loss of lives.
They are talking about adding character to city and added premium for development projects.They are talking value of property, we are talking value of lives.We do not want the begrudge a Malaysian company from being profitable,but we also do not want them to profit at our expense.
After all, they are a business, and if they made a bad business decision buying land not viable to develop,in this case, possibly endangering direct neighbours, then too bad – it was a bad business decision.And like any bad business decision, they will have to pay for it. Not us. (Not with the destruction of our property years down the line due to landslides, erosion, nor with our lives nor the lives of next generation who lives here.)
Businesses make bad decisions daily and this applies to all types of industry.But why must we go to such great lengths to protect this small number of developers who want to build on hillslopes. What makes them so special? What kind of developer go spend hundreds of millions (as quoted by Rehda) without knowing the land they are buying and its surrounding? (Well, if you do come by this area, we can tell you who.) (And they can’t tell us … they got all approval, blah blah ‘cos we know how they get approvals!)They say they can ensure safety of hillslope development … but who is going to guarantee this? … who isgoing to enforce this? … and for how long … ?
Unfortunately, based on many many past examples we have seen, we can safely say we are skeptical. All in all, I applaud our new Selangor MB for standing by his word on the blanket ban (if the report is true)on hillslope development. It is assuring to know our new MB is looking out for our interest ahead of a corporateentitys.
BTW, if Mr Eddy Chan of Rehda is so confident of the safety of all hillslope developments,we will gladly give him a property for him and his entire family to stay in over here, while they are clearing the hills behind us for development and putting up a 20 metres concrete wall on analready slippery slope!
Ok, I hope you will feel better. Thanks for hearing me out.
Best regards,
Lee
Ukay Heights
Ampang
Dear Teresa,
I am not convinced with Rehda’s response. When the developers bought the hillslope during the previous BN state government, do you think they have the nearby residents safety in mind? Do you think these developers would care much if a landslide occurs under a BN state government? I am not convinced until there is a very clear cut and strict penalty that allows directors (or real owners) of these companies to be charged and jailed in court including their permit revoked if they are found to flout the law. But then, the maxim is that prevention is better than cure, so please do not allow development of hillslope grade 3 and 4. The state government better listens to the rakyat and not the developers!!!!
Pakatan Rakyat’s pledge is to become a state government that listens to the people. Developers, are also part of the rakyat.
I believe the current administration did the right thing by listening to both side. The environmentalists have had their say so now it is the businessmens’ turn
we might agree or disagree with what people say. even idiots have the right to be their ownself as long as they do not harm anyone
the current negative perception of the developers are legacy of the previous environment, both the developers and approving authorities, and also the house buyers. Remember, no demand and no supply?
I hope whatever decision the state government take on projects approval, the decisions would be fair and reasons for approval be made known to all
the legacy of the previous haphazard development implementation (resulting in High Land Towers tragedy and perhaps other problems) have left a lot of raw wounds and distrust.
the developers should consider social responsibility in their business model. something the developed nations care to do.
I applaud the Selangor MB’s blanket ban on hillside development. The safety of the public should be above considerations of profits to developers. My wife and I bought an apartment on a flat land developed by a major main board listed property development company years ago and we are now going to move out of it for safety considerations.
We bought a landed property last year also on a flat land and we are far from pleased with the quality of the work.
So, how confident are we that the developers will do a good job on a hillside project?
Teresa, U should take Nades negative commentary about hillslopes development constructively.We Malaysian have had a deep distrust over politician especially after 50 years of UMNO rule. Powerful and rich loobists like the housing developers associations and its members are also the major contributories of the country state of corruption in the past. From, the lists of abandone projects and hosts of violations of buildings byelaws we see how businesses have abused the laws to serve their money making interests at the expense of the house buyers. Therefore the PR state government should be aware that horse trading between the developers and the state authorities should not happened in any new housing projects.
I support Teresa Kok’s move 100%. To me she’s above suspicion. Developers, like all businessmen, should not be sidelined in the democratic process. We should engage them in discussions, tell them where they are wrong and where we can help them to improve.
Teresa, one more thing.
If the government approves a project, the public will deem that it has undertaken due diligence to ensure that the project is save for the public.
Therefore, if it is unsafe and properties and possibility lives are lost, then the blame should rightly go to the party who approves it.
So, approving projects should not be a task to be taken lightly.
There’s two separate issue here.
1. False reporting by The Sun, and refusal to carry correction. Which means they are intentionally defamatory.
2. Hill sides development it self.
My 2 cents on the issue no 2 is such;
a. The ban on hill side development MUST be continued FOR NOW. I’ll justify this later.
b. There’s nothing wrong having meeting and listen to lobbyist for hill side development. It is indeed true, there are many examples in the world which showcase hill side development.
Now coming back to my point a.
Hill side development blanket ban must be put in place now because of
1. The enforcement in the local councils are still crawling with BN’s legacy.
2. The projects approve by previous administration (BN) has always been suspect.
3. The need to revamp the whole process of EIA, development planning, enforcement, audit of hill side development.
4. The need to codify (legislate) hill side development from professional point of view, ie. geologist, environmentalist, civil engineer, etc. And NOT from business point of view. The legislation should be water tight and to the utmost stringent standard of safety. Make it VERY VERY costly for hill side development.
There’s no need to be apologetic to the business community with regards to environment and public safety.
Saying all that. I hope all Pakatan state government will continue on 100% ban on hill side development until a rock solid mechanism of check and recheck, and triple check against the highest standards in the world. And not forgetting the environment. In fact, that must come first!