GEORGE TOWN: Forty-five non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have endorsed a petition urging the prime minister to reject the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) project which will see the creation of three man-made islands to fund the state’s Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP).
The NGOs include the Consumers’ Association of Penang (CAP), Penang Fishermen Welfare Association, Sahabat Alam Activist Association (Kuasa), Tanjung Bungah Residents Association (TBRA), Penang Forum, Suaram Malaysia, Malaysia Fishermen Welfare and Education Association (Jaring), Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM), Penang Heritage Trust, the Penang branch of the Malaysian Nature Society, Perak Heritage Society and Penang Inshore Fishermen Welfare Association (PIFWA).
The petition was started by heritage advocate and staunch critic of the Penang government, Khoo Salma Nasution, a former Penang Island City Council and Penang Forum member, 10 days ago.
In the petition, which has garnered some 10,000 signatures, Khoo Salma outlined 20 reasons why the massive reclamation project should be rejected.
Among the reasons were the lack of public consultation and detailed information about the project, destruction of rich fisheries in Penang, threat to the livelihoods of 4,817 inshore fishermen and the impact of sand-mining would also be felt in Perak.
The RM46 billion PTMP, which includes highways and light rail transit, is the state government’s ambitious solution to the state’s traffic woes.
CAP vice-president Mohideen Abdul Kader said what started off as a transport policy for the state has now turned into a massive reclamation project.
“What Penang people are facing is traffic congestion, and what we need is good public transport which will see 70 to 80 per cent of the people moving to public transportation. We need a good and affordable public transport system.
“The PTMP project is only going to benefit developers and businessmen, who want big profits, instead of the people,” he said.
Mohideen said the NGOs were also worried that the PTMP would turn out to be a financial burden, which will see future generations laden with debt.
“Once such a massive project is implemented, you cannot take it back. We just do not see the justification for this massive reclamation project,” he told a press conference at CAP office in Jalan Masjid Negeri.
The press conference was attended by representatives of the NGOs, who chanted ‘tolak tambakan’ (reject reclamation).
Meanwhile, MNS Penang branch adviser D. Kanda Kumar said the main issue that needed to be determined was whether the massive development was needed or not.
He said the state government should also considere other alternatives, including the alternative provided by Penang Forum.
“This should be a transport plan and not a development plan,” he said.
Khoo Salma also agreed that the project has now turned into Penang Real Estate Master Plan instead of a transport master plan.
She said that many within the Pakatan Harapan coalition were also concerned about the project and wanted to question the state government but were instead warned by party members to keep quiet.
TBRA chairman Meenakshi Raman said the environmental impact of the project would likely extend all the way to Perak, from where the 189 million kilogrammes per cubic metres of sand would be mined.
She asked the Department of Environment (DoE) to extend the period of the Environmental Impact Assessment and asked for further explanation on the sand mining effect.
In agreeing with Meena, Kuasa chairman Hafizudin Nasarudin said the sand mining and land reclamation would likely cause serious coastal erosion as well as kill breeding and landing grounds for turtles.
“This we have observed over 10 years from the Marina Island reclamation in Lumut. Most of the northern coast of Perak, including Teluk Muroh, Lekhir and Manjung, were badly affected after the Marina Island reclamation project and some 6,000 fishermen ended up suffering because of it.”
PIFWA chairman Ilias Shafie, meanwhile, said contrary to the state government’s claims, most of the fishermen were against the project.
“We are, of course, against it. We know from past experience that the project will negatively impact our livelihood,” he said.