Hillslopes Development and Bukit Antarabangsa Tragedy/ 土崩不能总归咎天意

The MCA Government Policy Monitoring Bureau would like to express our deepest condolences to the victims of Bukit Antarabangsa landslide tragedy. It is our hope that landslides tragedy will NOT occur again in our country.

In the last 15 years, there were 13 major landslides in Hulu Kelang area, of which 5 were in Bukit Antarabangsa area.

There should be more political will by both the Federal and State Government to ensure that there is no landslide in highland developments.

There are clear guidelines of highlands development by the Ministry of Environment. These guidelines are not only set out clearly according to the gradient of hillslopes, it also laid out steps to be taken to ensure safety on hillslopes development. They should be strictly adhered to, regulated, monitored and enforced.

Highland developments are classified into:

a) Class I - Gradient Less than 15 degrees

b) Class II - Gradient more than 15 to less than 25 degrees

c) Class I & Class II - For Development with Conditions

d) Class III - Gradient more than 25 to less than 35 degrees-little development allowed

e) Class IV - Gradient more than 35 degrees-No development allowed

There are even details about the qualifications and experience of consultants involved in the projects. However, it looks good on paper only.

When such tragedy occurs, many questions remain unanswered, especially who is to be held liable:

1. The approving authority is the local authority and often it lacks the technical know how and have to be dependent on other bodies. We are given to understand that the Ampang council does not even have a senior engineer to supervise Highland development.

2. There should be close supervising during the project implementation. If there are EIA requirements, who is to ensure that mitigating measures are followed and enforced? Supervision we are told is lacking.

3. Who is the Monitoring Authority? Often coordinated approaches involving many technical departments are required. It cannot be left to the local authority, which is lack of the expertise. If these consultants both private and government are involved, then they should be held accountable. It is they who are the experts, who certified the projects safe.

4. When the projects are completed, who is responsible for monitoring the projects and for how long it should be monitored? Leaving it to the developer to do the job of maintenance without being monitored is NOT the best method to ensure compliance.

5. Often if developments are by different contractors and developers – there is no coordination among them of who undertakes the coordination. There are accusations that some landowners / developers cut down their lands if the gradient is too steep to less steep (<35)degrees.

Every landslide and tragedy provides an opportunity to the authority to investigate the actual cause of the landslides – what went wrong and who is responsible. Often nobody seems to be accountable. The usual finger pointing and blame game starts.

a) Was it a design fault?

b) Did the construction go according to plan?

c) It is a maintenance problem that causes the landslides?

The victims and rakyat have the right to know who is responsible or accountable when tragedy strikes.

It cannot be an “Act of God” always. We are given to understand that while some consultants have paid the price of being negligent, no private developers have ever been brought to court for failing to comply with conditions laid down by the local authority.

The State Government and Federal Government must show that they are committed to ensure safety on hillslopes development. We may have to learn from Hong Kong how they overcome their problems on hillslopes development, otherwise landslides will continue and more tragedies will occur.

Buyers should NOT be faulted for buying houses on the hillslopes. We take it that the buildings are safe after the authority have approved it and certified it fit for occupation. However buyers have to be more careful in purchasing hillslopes houses. It can be time bomb.

Meanwhile the authority may want to review all hillslopes development that have been approved but not implemented. As for ongoing projects, it should be strictly monitored and regulated.

The Penang state government has shown a good example by ticking off one of the hillslopes developer in its state.

Until then we can only pray that landslides will not occur anymore.

我仅代表马华政府政策监督局向国际山庄土崩的灾民传达我们深切的慰问。我们诚心祈望我国不会再发生土崩惨剧。

翻看资料，淡江在过去15年里共发生了13宗土崩事件，其中5宗位于国际山庄地区。

在这起事件上，联邦政府和州政府都必须严正看待，双方也需体现更大的政治意愿，来确保高原的发展不会导致土崩事件。

事实上，环境部已订有明确和详细的高原发展指南，有关指南不仅根据不同斜度的山坡设定发展准则，也阐明确保山坡发展安全所应采取的措施，所有高原发展计划的相关单位应该严格遵守，监督和执行。

根据这项指南，高原发展分为：
1.第1级 － 山坡斜度少于15度
2.第2级 － 斜度超过15度但少于25度
注：第1和2级的高原地带可进行发展但具附带条规
3.第3级 － 斜度超过25度但少于35度。
注：被允许的发展非常有限
4.第4级 － 斜度超过35度
注：禁止发展

此外，高原发展指南也阐明参与发展计划的咨询顾问机构，所应具备的资格和经验。 不过，看起来只是纸上谈兵。

当悲剧发生后，我们有会一箩箩的问题，惟都没有得到答案，尤其是没人告诉我们谁应该负责。

以下几点值得进一步探讨：

1.地方政府是批准发展计划的单位，但却严缺技术专才而必须依赖其他机构。据解，在安邦再也县议会并没有高级工程师负责监督高原发展。

2.有关当局必须严谨监督发展计划的进行过程。如果该计划需要环境评估报告，谁来确保他们遵守报告提出的步骤？由谁执行？我们了解这方面的确缺乏监督工作。

3.谁是整个计划的监督单位？一般上，监督的协调工作牵涉许多技术单位，不能只由缺乏技术专才的地方政府来独当。不管是来自政府或私人界，所有参与发展计划的咨询顾问都要被问责，一项计划是否安全可行，是由他们鉴定和证明，他们才是这方面的专家。

4.发展计划完工后，又由谁执行持续监督工作？监督多久？放手让发展商进行维修工作而没有监督整个过程肯定不是最好的做法。

5.如果不同的发展商和承包商参与一项计划，往往没有人会协调这些工作。更有些消息指，一些发展上把斜度超出既定指标的山地，夷平至35度以下，使该地段的发展获得批准。

每一场土崩事件都给有关当局机会深入调查土崩的真正肇因，包括查出问题的症结，以及谁该负责？可是，通常都没有一个单位会负起责任，只有不停地互相指责。

那到底哪里出问题？
· 是设计和策划失误？
· 建筑工程有没有按照计划进行？
· 是维修问题导致土崩吗？

所有灾民和人民都有权了解和知道，谁应该惟这起灾难负责任。我们总不能每次归咎于天灾。据了解，有不少咨询顾问因为疏忽被对付，但却不曾听闻违反地方政府条例的发展商被提控上庭。

联邦和中央政府都要证明给人民知道，政府决意确保山坡发展计划的安全。我们可以向香港取经，学习该国如何管理高地发展计划，如何应对问题。否则，土崩山崩等悲剧将持续重演。

土崩不能怪罪予山坡屋业的购屋者。购屋者购买山坡地区房屋，是因为有关当局已鉴定安全入住。不过，购屋者日后必须加倍小心选购山坡的屋业，因为它形同一个计时炸弹。

与此同时，有关当局或需重新检视所有已批准但还未进行的山坡发展计划。而已进行当中的计划，必须确保它遵从一切条例，严格监督。

不久前，槟城州政府宣布停止一切山坡发展计划，为大家竖立了好榜样。

目前，我们只能祈求不会再发生类似的惨剧。