The latest landslide in Taman Seri Rambai in Paya Terubong on 25 October – one of many on Penang Island – has killed a 73-year-old doctor.
The Penang Island City Council mayor said the developer’s consultants would assess ground movement behind the affected area, while state officials said the project’s engineers and consultants should explain whether construction complied with approved plans and technical requirements.
This may look like ‘competency and accountability’, but it is not. What good is it to require the developer’s consultants to assess the site after the tragedy?
How many developers’ consultants have gone to prison for project failures that caused deaths and injuries, as well as damaging property? None as far as I know. This keeps the ‘death cycle’ going.
Are consultants not supposed to foresee a project’s possible harm to the environment and nearby communities?
Is their ultimate responsibility to ensure their reports support their paymasters’ planning applications? If so, isn’t there bias from the start? ‘I’m paying you to ensure my project gets approval.’
When a project is approved on a consultant’s ‘expert’ report and then fails, during or after construction, is it wrong to say the report was ‘defective’? [At this stage, however, the cause of the Taman Seri Rambai landslide has not been determined; the relevant government agencies are expected to investigate.]
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), Maybank a/c 507246118995 or CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a regular pledge or periodic auto-donation to Aliran
- Become an Aliran member
If the council takes consultants’ reports at face value, approves the projects and collects fees for doing so, does it not share responsibility for any tragedies that follow?
Requiring developers to hire their own consultants appears to favour developers, because consultants are unlikely to ‘bite the hands that feed them’.
This system may also tempt consultants to withhold vital information that could jeopardise a planning application. It is a system open to abuse.
The city council cannot wash its hands of the tragedies that follow project approvals. It has a duty of care to ensure public safety and wellbeing.
However, it appears to be shirking that duty by pointing fingers at developers’ consultants, who in past tragedies have got away with a slap on the wrist at most.
Are there no grounds to charge them for causing death? Is their competence not being questioned?
The current method of letting developers appoint ‘consultants’ themselves is biased and must change.
The government should instead appoint the consultants from a pool and charge their fees to developers.
Consultants will struggle to be upright while they fear that rejected reports will break their own rice bowls.
The city council must stop pointing fingers at developers’ consultants and look at its own processes, which may contribute to such tragedies.
Making money for the state should not be the aim of development if it seriously harms the environment and existing communities.
The views expressed in Aliran's media statements and the NGO statements we have endorsed reflect Aliran's official stand. Views and opinions expressed in other pieces published here do not necessarily reflect Aliran's official position.
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
