Questions still unanswered on justification for PTMP, PSI

 

From Dr Lim Mah Hui

On May 27, 10 DAP assemblymen in Penang issued a statement affirming the “necessity, feasibility and the vision underlying the PTMP and PSI project”.

Note that the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) with all its social and ecological issues is being reinvented as Penang South Islands (PSI) to make it more marketable; nevertheless, PSI and PSR are used interchangeably here.

The DAP backbenchers accused Gerakan, PAS and Penang Forum for recycling criticisms that had already been answered by the state.

On the PTMP

I do not dispute the feasibility of the project purely from an engineering perspective. However, I do have grave doubts about the Penang state and local governments’ capability to execute and handle such mega projects given their poor track record as attested by the financial fiasco and human tragedy in building the 5km Bukit Kukus highway.

What more for mega projects such as the proposed undersea tunnel and the Pan Island Link 1 (PIL1) with 10km of tunnels running through the hills and fault lines of Penang island.

The proposed PTMP and PSI in the present form are neither necessary nor visionary.

Recognising their past folly of building mega highways that catered to cars and destroyed communities, city authorities in the United States, South Korea, and other countries are tearing down these structures today as reported by the New York Times in an article, “Can Removing Highways Fix America’s Cities?” dated May 27, 2021.

Instead of learning from the mistakes of these countries, our politicians seem bent on repeating them.

Do our esteemed assemblymen deny the real hazards of climate change and the growth of private vehicle use as a major contributor to it?

Are they not aware of how transport technology is changing so rapidly and how the pandemic has altered working and travelling patterns so drastically that it is foolish to apply outdated solutions like building highways to solve traffic and mobility problems?

Other countries are investing in congestion pricing, better public transportation systems and encouraging bicycling as alternatives while we still prioritise highway building. Is the PTMP in its present form reactionary or visionary?

The state assemblymen, like the Penang government, accuse Penang Forum of only criticising and not offering alternatives.

In 2016, Penang Forum proposed its “Better, Cheaper, Faster” version of public transport system as an alternative vision and outline to the PTMP. Granted it is not a full-blown technical report, which can only be done by transport professionals, it provides an outline and road map for a more scaled down and sustainable transport system.

We invited the Penang government to engage world-renowned independent sustainable mobility experts to evaluate the proposal and the PTMP. But this was never done.

Penang Forum was the first to propose to the state government in 2018 to consider the trackless tram or ART (autonomous rail transit) system instead of the LRT system, when the ART was first introduced in China.

Penang could have built the ART in a year or two at one tenth the cost of an LRT. This was also rejected.

Instead, Sarawak is implementing the Kuching Urban Transportation System, which is using ART, powered by hydrogen fuel cells. The project’s civil and structural works are expected to begin in 2022.

In Johor, the first ART system arrived in January for pilot testing for the Iskandar Malaysia Bus Rapid Transit project.

Sarawak and Johor have implemented the ART while Penang is still whistling in the wind.

On the PSR

The state assemblymen also claim that the PSR or PSI is a visionary project that will bring tens of thousands of new jobs and propel Penang to greater heights building on the track record of the former chief minister Dr Lim Chong Eu.

Unfortunately repeating past performance is no guarantee of future achievement. Moreover, times and circumstances have changed.

The dark side of unbridled reclamation – from destructive sand mining operations to devastation of marine biodiversity to damaging of coastlines, to carbon emission of 3.2 million tonnes annually in the PSR reclamation – is now increasingly recognised.

However, the Penang government still thinks reclamation is a costless way to acquire land.

It fails dismally to recognise the richness of the area in supporting sustainable fishing livelihoods and securing food security for Penangites and severely underestimates the ecological losses from the reclamation process.

SRS’s consultants in its Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) clearly admitted that the PSR project will result in “irreversible change” to the environment and a “permanent loss” of physical and biological resources in the seas south of Penang island.

The original justification for the PSR project was to finance the PTMP. Significantly, this justification and link has now disappeared.

The PSI is unable to finance even a small fraction of the PTMP, as reported here.

The following needs are now presented to justify the PSR: to plan for a smart city; to provide employment opportunities; to expand the Bayan Lepas Free Trade Zone; and to develop and retain human capital; and, to relieve development pressure on George Town.

I support all these lofty objectives. My point is that the state can achieve all of these by redirecting development and growth to the mainland.

A major weakness in Penang which the state government recognises is the unbalanced development between mainland Penang and Penang island. Too much growth has been concentrated on the island contributing to escalating land prices and pressure.

What better way to redress this imbalance than to focus its energy on developing the mainland as well.

The state could also turn a state-wide sustainable mobility network of bus rapid transit, modern trams or ART and water taxies into a major economic sector. This sector could provide thousands of direct and indirect jobs (drivers, maintenance, administration, technical support and IT) as well as jobs in support sectors such as the construction of buses and water taxies; and maintenance workshops and depots, and transport coordination.

Recycling criticisms that have been answered

Finally, these DAP assemblymen claim that Penang Forum is merely recycling criticisms that have already been answered. Yes, the state has responded to some of our queries and criticisms.

But as any teacher would tell a student, responding to a question is not the same as providing a satisfactory or even passable answer.

Let me repeat a few fundamental questions on the PSR and PTMP that have been raised that have not been adequately answered by the state.

Can the state justify its population projection which is forecast to reach 446,000 on the three islands by 2030 as stated in the EIA report?

Can the state explain how it will fund the PTMP projects which will cost billions when its expected revenue from reclaiming half of Island A would probably be about RM600 million in seven to 10 years’ time?

This is only equivalent to about one years’ state revenue. However, the environmental damage and social losses would cost many times more, if they were truly to be accounted for.

Can the state explain how the costs of PSR has escalated from RM8 billion for two islands (totalling 3,530 acres) in 2015, to RM7 billion for half an island (only 1,200 acres) in 2021? These figures alone do not speak well of Penang’s competency, accountability, and transparency. - FMT

Dr Lim Mah Hui is an economist, former banker and Penang island city councillor.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.