2010年8月12日星期四

沙巴国际机场扩建工程与环境,看谁怕谁的经典!

说看不入流媒体的新闻胡乱,就算了。看到沙巴最老最权威最大流通量的报章报道这样的报道,大概不能说读者诬赖政府,冤枉政府了吧?

沙巴国际机场扩建的工程3-4年前已经开始,搞了好几年,怎么就是不能完工?原因是填海扩建跑道,填到一半,发现邻近的海岸线发生超乎想象的严重侵蚀,环境顾问公司做环境冲击评估报告(EIA)有严重瑕疵。

好了,交通部长来巡视了一回,大概是大动肝火,追究起责任,找人来当替死鬼,“你被人骂,好过我被人骂,反正你被人骂骂也不会死的!”。

官爷对部长喊冤,没有发出过停工令,只是叫这两家环境顾问公司重新评估,不是为官的,造成工程延迟的同时时。人民想知道,既然是已知环境冲击评估报告(EIA)有严重错误,与事实不符,严重海岸侵蚀已经造成;官爷没有权力责任和使命去停止一个,从计划核准的第一天开始,就存在误导人民,隐瞒着一个决定性关键的计划?环境冲击评估报告本来就不该核准,这样的扩建规模和建设方法。(#1)

作为一个拥有执法权力的部门,作为一个审核机构,某公司可否成为合格的环境评估顾问公司的执照发出部门。当发现,这家顾问公司的评估,预测冲击,与实际的填海的环境冲击,完全相反(“total contradicted”)时,难道这部门没有义务,权利,责任和使命去纠正吗?这是喊冤的时候吗?是计划的背后利益团体动不得吗?人民的权益不是完全交托在你的手上吗?这不是你的失责吗?(#2)

顾问公司为什么会在评估报告,完全没有提及这个河口村庄,会发生严重侵蚀?(#3)
(1) 是顾问公司根本不符合资格,那是这部门的审核出现滥权舞弊吗?
(2) 是顾问公司,碍于计划背后利益团体庞大的政商压力而屈服?
(3) 这专业顾问公司是不是失信于官方机构的委托,和失信于人民的权益?这大概不是民事纠纷,这可是刑事失信(CBT),应该给以刑事提控吧?

哈!作为负责沙巴州环境保护部门(EPD),作为评估核准(the authority)“计划环境冲击评估报告”的机构,核准的基础(basis of approval),竟然是选择相信它准确无误(believing…… were accurate),而不是独立评估。这可以为你减少,哪怕是任何一点点的失责的愧疚吗?(#4)

来啦!戏肉来了!当环境冲击评估报告核准后,计划要建额外的600米填海跑道,EPD只是像普罗大众那样听说(hear unofficially)!在通过向环境顾问公司求证,才确认此事!当要求环境顾问公司重新评估时,环境顾问公司拒绝了! 这是什么东西?(#5)
(1) 顾问公司凭什么决绝做新评估?
(2) 作为其中一个核准计划的单位,当发现批准A,要建B,不应该马上要求停工?不该由建设雇主(project client)负责通过顾问公司的新评估(reassessment),寻求许可吗?并且向EPD展现新单元的完全合符要求吗?
(3) 为什么是EPD要求顾问公司做新评估?谁是老板,谁怕谁?
(4) 有没有其他利益集团势力干预,阻止作为一个负责环境保护的政府机构,执行它所被委托的使命和责任?

同样的,既然EPD认为额外的工程单元(600米的跑道)所牵涉的,必须有新的环境冲击报告(a fresh EIA),为什么不坚持专业要求?为什么让步?让步求其次,允许比较片面的水力研究(hydrological study),并呈交水力假想模式(hydrology model)为第一次环境冲击评估报告的附件(appendum)。(#6)

其实也不必你多报告了,这样的结局,难道不在大家的意料之内?环境冲击评估报告的附件(appendum),里头的水力假想模式(hydrology model)根本没有涉及侵蚀的问题,造成整个天然沙堤屏障完全消失。(#7)

是的,我们知道,经过这一切,EPD没有发出停工令,一切的工程延误,与你无关!你究竟为谁服务?谁是老板?(#8)

这根本就是一齣活生生的欺骗,失信,无能,横行霸道的戏码!难道顾问公司,官员,背后的利益团体,监督工程单位,顾问公司,部长,首席部长等等,不该马上被警方,反贪委员会,州廉政委员会,国家关键绩效领域管理单位,公务员纪律委员会,专业工程师组织等等调查吗?

************************************************************

转载:DAILY EXPRESS:Dept 'not to blame for delay'
Published on: Wednesday, August 11, 2010

#1 Kota Kinabalu: The Environmental Protection Department feels it is being unfairly implicated in the KKIA extension project delay. EPD Director, Yabi Yangkat, stressed that it never issued any stop work order except to ask the two Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) consultants to do a reassessment of their report after severe unanticipated erosion hit the adjacent coastal village of Kg Contoh.

#2 According to him, some of the predictions in the original EIA report on the impacts of the Kota Kinabalu International Airport reclamation "totally contradicted" what actually happened in terms of coastal erosion. "But the fingers began pointing squarely at the EPD," he said. Feeling the need to clarify the background issues, Yabi said it had to call on the EIA consultants and contractors to make necessary amends.

"Twice we were implicated for blame in Parliament, first upon being questioned why the EPD failed to identify the erosion after villagers complained to their MPs about losing houses to waves. "Secondly, we were named by Federal Ministers for delaying the approval of the Reassessment Report which they said contributed to the delay of the extension project," Yabi said. Yabi cited a reply in Parliament in July by Deputy Transport Minister, Datuk Abdul Rahim Bakri, who when questioned by DAP Member of Parliament for Kota Kinabalu, Dr Hiew King Chew, on the delay, said that apart from delay in possession of the land formerly owned by Royal Sabah Turf Club, there was "also delay in the approval of the Supplementary EIA Report on the Petagas River Mouth, because of the work carried out there." The approving State agency in this case was the EPD.

#3 Explaining the events, Yabi said the EPD received and approved the original EIA for the KKIA extension project in 2007. "In the original EIA report, there was no specific statement that Kg Contoh (on the southern beach of the Petagas rivermouth) will be badly eroded. "But when reclamation was undertaken, very severe coastal erosion occurred, particularly in Kg Contoh, partly because the 100-metre long bar at the mouth of the Petagas River was removed during the reclamation process. Hence the waves began to hit the village directly," Yabi said. The kampung folks lodged complained to Putatan MP Datuk Marcus Mogigoh, who posed the question to Federal Minister of Natural Resources and Environment, Dato' Douglas Unggah Embas.

#4 Yabi said EPD approved the original EIA on the KKIA extension project on the basis of believing that the recommendations provided in the EIA consultants in their report, were accurate. "But in the original EIA report, there was no mention of the Landing Approach Light project component," Yabi claimed.

#5 "As time went by, we heard unofficially from various sources that they would be building the Landing Approach Light facility which would extend 600m out to sea from the terminal end of the reclamation."Upon further enquiry, the two consultants confirmed this. To facilitate this, they said they would dredge sand from the Petagas River mouth but didn't say the volume nor how they planned to carry it out. "It was then that we asked the consultants to undertake another EIA study but they declined." Yabi said the beach erosion in Kg Contoh presently is very severe. "Our worry is that if they dredge a very deep 600m channel right in front at Kg Contoh, the coastal village may even collapse.

#6 "The latest we heard is that in order to build the Landing Approach Light they would need to dredge two channels and excavate 200,000 cubic metres of sea sand from the project site," Yabi said. The EPD felt that excavation of that scale would needed a fresh EIA. But since the consultants declined, a hydrological study which involves modelling was agreed to and in March 2010, they submitted this additional report called the appendum to the EIA report, Yabi said. "We duly approved this Reassessment Report three months later after meeting with the relevant technical departments and getting additional information from the EIA consultant," Yabi said.

#7 "It was during a second meeting with the EIA consultants and the contractors on July 22 that the consultants verbally told us that the channels would be 12.5m deep, arguing that such depth was needed for the construction barge to access the area to carry out work. "That's 40ft deep almost equivalent to a four-storey high building (approx 40ft) deep but the figures are not specified in the Reassessment Report," Yabi claimed. "A site visit on 30 July by three of our senior officers also confirmed that the 100m sand bar in front of the Petagas River mouth had been removed but the Reassessment Report or Appendum to the EIA report failed to take this (disappearance of sand bar which originally provided a buffer against waves) into account and we are worried about the consequences of such deep channels dug so close to Kg Contoh ," Yabi said. "Since barges are normally flat-bottomed which might have a displacement of say just eight feet, it also raised questions on why they need to excavate a 40ft deep channel," Yabi said.

#8 Nevertheless, Yabi said no stop work order was issued but the EPD issued directives that there be no dredging of sand at the site and that the contractors would have to find a more environmental way to build the Land Approach Lights facility. "Secondly, they will have to inform the EPD what method they are going to use to get the job done," Yabi said.

2 条评论:

大佬:“反秤复民” 说...

连英文报都出,看来真的很大单。

正掌心 说...

大佬兄,这主管是在喊冤,没有造成工程延迟。那谁为环境,和受影响的人们喊冤?我觉得太不可思议了!在马来西亚真的无所不能的。