Compromise solution between greed, conservation

 

 It's hard to get people to care about protecting forests because we Malaysians seem fixated over racial issues like KK Mart socks and bak kut teh.

But I will try anyway.

Now, what would you say if “good guy reformers” don't change the old wrongs of the “bad guys”? I'm not talking about election promises by Pakatan Harapan to abolish oppressive laws like the Sedition Act.

I'm referring to stripping the Bukit Cherakah Forest Reserve (degazetting) of its protected status. This was done by the former Selangor state government 24 years ago under then Umno menteri besar Mohd Khir Toyo, who was later jailed for the infamous “bungalow scandal”.

Large swaths of forests were given to four “friendly” companies, which had some “directors” who were not even adults.

This was criticised even by then-prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. In March 2005, after a media uproar, he took a well-publicised helicopter ride to survey the area personally and was “outraged” to see the deforestation there.

Then came the 2008 “political tsunami”. The “good guys” Pakatan Rakyat (the precursor to Harapan) took over Selangor in 2008. They should have reversed Khir’s bad deeds right?

Legal gymnastics

However, nothing was done. So, activists and nature lovers had to do the hard work of digging up old legal documents and they found in 2022 that the degazetting was never done properly.

The then-president of the Malaysian Bar Council AG Kalidas confirmed this.

The exposure of this bureaucratic bungling should have made PKR Menteri Besar Amirudin Shari admit “OK, let’s reverse BN’s bad decision. Let’s save the forest”.

Selangor MB Amirudin Shari

But sadly, state officials instead resorted to a backdoor move - they backdated the degazettement to 2000. In other words, they were saying, “We reconfirm and support what Khir did”.

Why the legal gymnastics? Why not be man enough to say, yes, there was a mistake with the procedures, and we will hereby degazette it soon?

Well, can Harapan openly admit to doing deforestation? Why not just blame everything on past "bad guys"?

Plus, land has obviously changed hands. Backdating will also avoid having a public hearing on the issue (that law only came into force in 2011). So much for transparency.

Piece of paradise

Over the years, development has slowly eaten away parts of the forest. But one small pocket remaining is the Shah Alam Community Forest or SACF.

It’s even better than the forests of Bukit Kiara and Bukit Gasing which are overgrown rubber estates. In contrast, SACF is the remainder of the original, pristine rainforest, rich with wildlife such as gibbons, hornbills, slow loris, mousedeers and tapirs.

Imagine that, tapirs! These are animals that tourists normally travel to Taman Negara in Pahang to see. But they are found right in the Klang Valley.

SACF has become a very popular hiking area. My friends from Petaling Jaya drive all the way there to trek. There is a word for this. It's called ecotourism.

Its hills are a green lung not only for hikers. They also freshen and cool the air for residents in several nearby housing areas. Just like what Bukit Kiara does for the people of Taman Tun Dr Ismail, Kuala Lumpur.

The steep slopes are great for hikers but terrible for development because that will mean soil erosion and flash floods. Haven't we had enough of that in Malaysia?

Legal battle

On Aug 4, 2022, SACF Society and Peka Malaysia filed a court case against the Selangor government for unlawful degazettement.

Before the 2022 election, SACF-S also asked the Harapan candidate for Shah Alam, Azli Yusof, if he could help preserve this forest. He said he would try his best.

For a while, the deforestation stopped. The legal case is now on appeal at the Federal Court.

But destruction has restarted in a pristine area with road construction. As the society said, this is despite numerous public objections to the road in the Shah Alam City Council (MBSA) 2035 Local Plan Draft.

Even worse, how can the forest be destroyed when the court case is ongoing? When the issue of whether the area is still legally a forest reserve has not been determined? Even former premier Najib Abdul Razak was not jailed as long as his cases were still on appeal.

A total of 106,000 people signed a petition to save SACF.

Do they not matter? Perhaps hikers and nature lovers are not good enough to save SACF.

Greenwashing destruction

The sad truth is that there are powerful interests that want to chop down our green lungs for big bucks, never mind that the public loses a well-loved oasis and flash floods are caused. And sadly these vested interests are not limited to Umno.

Another problem is the obsession with landed property. This is why the Selangor State Development Corporation (PKNS) wants to build houses on the steep hills of SACF.

The project is called Sierra Alam, with “sierra” being the Spanish word for “mountains”. PKNS plans to chop down 80 percent of the forest area they allegedly “own” while keeping a mere 20 percent. But legally they can't own a forest reserve.

For this meagre slice, they claim to “safeguard the Green Lung of Shah Alam”. This is just greenwashing development as “conservation”.

One would have expected more environmental responsibility from PKNS, which is controlled by the Harapan state government.

Why chop down a pristine hill forest when Selangor still has flat palm oil land elsewhere to develop?

Compromise solution

But all is not lost. I suggest a compromise solution that caters to both politicians and developers as well as conservation.

This is to sacrifice the fringes of SACF for high-density condos but preserve the remaining 90 percent of the forest. It's a win-win solution.

Many people get to enjoy the forest view and fresh air. And then they become the critical mass that will speak out against further development, not just the niche group of nature lovers now.

In other words build vertically, not horizontally, as that hacks away the forest. Developers still get their profits as they can sell even more units than landed houses.

The condos can carry a premium price as it overlooks the serene forest. Residents will have a ready-made nature getaway in their backyard without having to travel to Taman Negara.

Property owners who have paid good money will have a louder, stronger voice to protect the forest than hikers who suffer from a major “sin” – enjoying the green hills for free.

My idea comes from seeing the condos being built around the Kota Damansara Community Forest (KDCF) in Petaling Jaya. One of them is being built by Sunway and it's called D'Hill. Their tagline - "forest living in the city".

Strict greenies will criticise me for allowing even a small part of the forest to be developed. But let's face it, can we place “harapan” or “hope” in the Selangor government to control vested interests and do the right thing?

But I recognise that this article will probably just be forgotten. Sigh… if only some controversial socks were found in the forest. Then maybe, just maybe, this issue will get some attention. - Mkini

---

ANDREW SIA is a veteran journalist who likes teh tarik khau kurang manis. You are welcome to give him ideas to brew at tehtarik@gmail.com.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.