Penang’s opposition fails to raise critical questions on PSI project

 

From Andrew Han

I express profound disappointment with the performance of Perikatan Nasional (PN) opposition representatives during the initial meeting of the 15th Penang legislative assembly, particularly concerning the Penang Silicon Island (PSI) reclamation project.

The opposition’s pre-election stance against the project seems to have lost momentum after they assumed their roles, missing a crucial opportunity to raise pertinent questions.

It was a wasted opportunity as they could have raised important and critical queries about issues related to the project’s environmental impact on food security and the loss of coastal fishermen’s livelihoods due to the PSI reclamation project. The irreversible damage to the mudflat ecosystem and the livelihoods of fishermen is highlighted in the PSI’s environmental impact assessment.

The PN opposition members missed the chance to enquire about the potential loss of self-sufficiency levels and their impact on consumers, especially as festivities like Chinese New Year are drawing near, during which wild fresh prawns and fish are very sought after.

Throughout the state assembly session, the opposition members failed to critically examine the government’s statements about food security issues related to the PSI project, leaving them unchallenged – unlike Bertam assemblyman Reezal Merican Naina Merican, who effectively questioned the Penang government about the drop in rice self-sufficiency level (SSL) from 63% to 61% and the shrinking agricultural land in Penang.

Reezal even pressed further on how Penang could achieve the national target of 80% SSL, considering Penang’s current situation. I appreciate his approach in the state assembly, where he raised valid doubts about the claim by the chief minister and excos that Penang has the highest rice production in Malaysia.

Reezal not only cast doubts on the state government’s statements, but also prompted necessary considerations about Penang’s actual standing in terms of rice production.

This kind of critical scrutiny is crucial for ensuring transparency and accountability in governance. Regrettably, the opposition members from PN failed to do just that for the SSL of Penang’s fish resources.

Rather than relying on anecdotal evidence, the opposition should have gathered specific data from affected fishing units before and after the PSI project began. By doing so, they could have countered Fahmi Zainol’s (agrotechnology, food security, and cooperative development exco) general data on Penang’s overall increase in fish landings.

Instead of engaging in a name-calling debate, the opposition should have questioned the state government’s plan for mitigating the loss of livelihoods and the adequacy of the jobs supposedly created for affected fishermen. Questions about the distribution of the 600 available jobs over 18 months and the fairness of the ex gratia and job offers were regrettably left unasked.

In moving forward, Penang’s opposition members should collaborate with independent academics, local NGOs, and grassroots organisations to obtain comprehensive information about the PSI project.

Furthermore, it is imperative for PN as an opposition front to prioritise the allocation of additional resources for in-depth research on the environmental, economic, and social impact associated with the PSI project.

A comprehensive and well-informed approach is not only vital for the effective fulfilment of their roles as opposition members of the Penang assembly, but also holds great significance for Penang’s well-being and the integrity of our democratic process.

A commitment to thorough research ensures that critical statements are made with a clear understanding of the potential consequences and benefits, promoting transparency and accountability in governance. - FMT

Andrew Han is a documentary filmmaker based in Penang and an FMT reader.

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