Penang Heritage Trust: Impressions of Prangin Canal and the Penang Transport Master Plan

Impressions of how the proposed monorail, light rail transit (LRT) and the integrated transit hub in Prangin Canal area will look like from the Penang Transport Master Plan. These views will show the relative distance of the pylons, the height of the platforms, and the possible developments that may happen within and at the boundaries of the George Town World Heritage Site.

PHT is not against any form of development that will benefit the population. However, we question the need to propose 3 different lines (including the tram), at various elevations and with an inflated cost, as compared to modern day, integated ground level trams which cost a fraction of what is proposed here.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1101488409914162.1073741837.206250309437981&type=3

Public response to Penang transport masterplan

We, the undersigned civil society organisations, wish to issue the following statement in response to the Penang Transport Master Plan.


We support the idea of a transport masterplan and the need to prioritise public transport over the present private car-centred transport system. We wish to commend the Penang State Government for this pro-active move. However there are very fundamental and critical issues that need to be addressed before the current proposals by SRS are acceptable.

1. Do our population projections warrant such a massive scheme at such tremendous costs, currently estimated at RM40bn? SRS projects 2.45m people by 2030 while the Malaysian Statistics Department projects 1.94m by 2040. Penang currently has negative population growth and the only way SRS’s projected figures can be achieved is if there is a massive net in-migration of over 50,000 people yearly – something that is unrealistic.

2. Following from the above, the financial viability of a public transport system is dependent on ridership and usage and its cost structure; otherwise, it ends up as a bleeding white elephant waiting to be bailed out by the people of Penang. Will our projected ridership be able to support such costly projects as the LRT and monorail, which are four to six times more expensive than new generation tram systems, which can equal the carrying capacity of LRT.

3. The success of a public transport system also hinges on its level of accessibility, connectivity and integration. As far as possible, there should a single integrated system. Why does SRS propose four different systems – LRT, monorail, tram and bus rapid transit – which will be difficult and more costly to coordinate, maintain & upgrade? Seamless connectivity will be difficult to achieve and KL’s failures should not be repeated.

4. The monorail is eminently unsuitable for the Penang landscape, being elevated, unsightly and intrusive. Even the present chief minister of Penang rejected the monorail system in 2013 as being unsuitable for the city. Transport experts tell us it is used for short sectors at theme parks and is hardly used anywhere in the world for public transportation. Furthermore, it is unsafe. If a breakdown or fire occurs midway, there is no safe route for passengers to escape. Sydney has dismantled its monorail, and Malacca’s monorail is non-functional and a visual and economic blight on its city. Do we need to go down this treacherous route?

5. Why is the tram system limited to the World Heritage Site? Modern generation trams are used in many cities. These modern trams are more manoeuverable, flexible and much less costly to build and operate. Trams require only an 11m turning radius compared to the LRT’s 135m, hence reducing the extent of land acquisition required if an LRT system is built. Their carrying capacity also matches LRT. A combination of a single integrated network of modern trams with BRT can adequately cater to both the island and the mainland’s needs.

6. The most worrying concern is that the PTMP lacks vision. It is touted as a plan for Penang for the next 50 years. Yet it is trapped in 20th century technology and approach in planning. It proposes obsolescent solutions to Penang’s transport problems, ignoring the latest developments in mass transit planning around the world. It neither anticipates nor plans for future sustainability and is still very car-centric. It will condemn the people of Penang to a system that does not resolve the state’s transportation woes and for a very high and unjustifiable cost.

7. Progressive cities throughout the world are now taking steps to reduce rather than cater to private vehicles entering into cities, greening and removing highways, and aiming to achieve zero carbon emissions. Yet, priority is given in the PTMP to building more roads and tunnels to cater to private vehicles. The purpose of building public transport is to reduce, not encourage, private vehicle usage. Even the new mayor of a car-centric city like Houston, Slyvester Turner, recently acknowledged that widening one of the city’s main highways to 26 lanes at a cost of RM10bn (US$2.6bn) only increased traffic and made congestion worse! Penang, which proudly declares it wants to lead, appears to demonstrate a total ignorance of current world concerns and trends.

8. The Halcrow Transport Master Plan recommended many cost-effective and short-term measures for reducing traffic that included better parking policies, city cycling, mobility improvement, high-occupancy-vehicle lanes, sharing vehicles etc. since 2012. Much time has been lost and this “better, faster, cheaper” strategy does not seem to be a focus of the PTMP.

9. For a government committed to CAT (competence, accountability and transparency), there is a lack of clarity with regard to the financing of the entire scheme. What are the people of Penang being committed to? How will payment via reclamation work? Will SRS implement roads first and public transport last? What happens if we run out of funds after the initial stages? Will the public be subjected to unaffordable fares, thereby making them return to their cars? No answers are provided in the PTMP.

For all these reasons, the people of Penang should not be rushed into signing this important agreement. More transparency, accountability and genuine engagement with the public are needed.
Signatories

1. Penang Forum
2. Penang Heritage Trust
3. Aliran
4. Sahabat Alam Malaysia
5. Consumers Association of Penang (CAP)
6. Malaysian Nature Society
7. Citizens for Public Transport Coalition (Cepat)
8. Friends of Botanical Garden
9. Pesticide Action Network Asia & Pacific
10. Tanjong Bunga Residents Association
11. Women’s Centre for Change
12. Suara Rakat Malaysia (Suaram)
13. PBTUSM Alumni Northern region
14. Mama Bersih
15. Ombak Arts Studio
16. Persatuan Pendidikan Seni Pulau Pinang (Arts-Ed)

25 April 2016

https://penangforum.net/2016/04/25/public-response-to-penang-transport-masterplan/

Penang board chides council for appealing against condo project, orders it to pay RM35,000

GEORGE TOWN, April 13 — The Penang Appeals Board ordered the Penang Island City Council (MBPP) today to pay RM35,000 in total costs after telling it off for appealing against the board’s stay order over a high rise project in Tanjung Pinang off Tanjung Tokong.

The board chairman Datuk Yeo Yang Poh ordered MBPP to pay costs of RM20,000 to the appellants and RM15,000 to the planning applicant.

“The board has powers to grant stay orders as provided under Section 23(3) and Section 36(10)(g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976,” he said as he rejected MBPP’s submissions that the board did not have the power to order a stay.

The board had granted the appellants, consisting of residents of Seri Tanjung Pinang, a stay order on the planning permission for the project, City Of Dreams, which is made of two 39-storey condominium blocks.

MBPP, in its appeal against the stay order, submitted that the board did not have the power to grant stay orders.

It also argued that the board did not need to take public interest into account when making such decisions.

Yeo labelled the council’s submission that the board do not need to take public interest into account as “absurd”.

“It defies common sense as matters of public interest is certainly relevant in the function of the board,” he said.

He said all aspects of the planning law was in the interest of the public and that it was the board’s responsibility to take into account public interest.

He pointed out that the issue of the board not having the power to grant stay orders based on public interest has never been raised since its formation in 1989.

“I am surprised that the respondent as a public authority could take up such an issue and present such points without putting enough work in it,” he said.

Yeo criticised MPPP’s arguments, saying the council did not appear to have made any effort to understand the case before submitting an appeal against the stay order.

“It is worrying that the respondent doesn’t seem to understand what transpired in this case,” he said.

He said the council’s pursuit of the case does not sit well with its role as a public authority especially when it has a duty to safeguard public interest.

Yeo later extended the stay order against the planning permission until the next decision date to be fixed later.

The planning applicant, Ewein Zenith Sdn Bhd, is only allowed to do piling works and works necessary for piling for the project.

It had initially obtained planning approval for the project in March 2015 before the board granted the appellants a stay order against the project late last year.

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/penang-board-chides-council-for-appealing-against-condo-project-orders-it-t

Penang High Court rejects ‘Botak Hill’ defamation suit against DAP rep

DAP's Teh Yee Chew (right) shaking hands with his lawyer, Cheah Eng Soon, after the defamation suit against him was thrown out by the Penang high court, April 11, 2016. — Picture by KE Ooi

Published: April 11, 2016 10:08 AM GMT+8

Published: April 11, 2016 10:08 AM GMT+8

GEORGE TOWN, April 11 — The Penang High Court today dismissed a private firm’s defamation suit against DAP’s Teh Yee Cheu over his remarks on the illegal hill clearing of the so-called “Botak Hill” here.

Justice Hadhariah Syed Ismail ruled that Teh’s remarks on the illegal hill clearing of Bukit Relau by General Accomplishments Sdn Bhd (GASB) was not defamatory.

“I find that the published suggestions by Teh that provisions under the National Forestry Act 1984 and the Environmental Quality Act 1974 be looked at in the case against GASB is not defamatory against the plaintiff,” she said when delivering her judgement today.

She then dismissed GASB’s defamation suit against Teh and ordered GASB to pay costs of RM30,000 to Teh.

GASB and Tan Sri Tan Kok Ping had jointly filed a writ of summons against Teh for allegedly issuing slanderous statements to the press during his “hair shaving ceremony” on January 1, 2014.

In the suit filed in May 2014, they contended that Teh had maliciously issued statements that “inextricably imputed a disparaging, irreparably and falsified general perception of GASB”.

Today, Hadhariah also ruled that statements Teh had made against GASB and the hill clearing that was published by various media including The Malaysian Insider and Nanyang Siang Pau were not defamatory.

Teh’s counsel, Cheah Eng Soon, said the court has also agreed with his submissions that Teh’s remarks advising Tan to adhere to existing laws on hill clearing were not defamatory in nature.

On January 1, 2014, Teh shaved his head bald as a symbolic “protest” to what he deemed as insufficient action taken against GASB over the illegal hill clearing of Bukit Relau.

GASB was fined RM30,000 by the Penang Sessions Court in 2013 for failing to submit earthworks plan as required by Section 70A of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 but Teh felt this was not enough.

Teh held the head-shaving ceremony to push for more actions to be taken against GASB and also to push the firm to start rehabilitation works on the hill immediately.

He had called on the Forestry Department, the Department of Environment (DOE) and also the Drainage and Irrigation Department (DID) to visit the site and to also take legal action against the landowner in accordance to their respective acts.

http://m.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/penang-high-court-rejects-botak-hill-defamation-suit-against-dap-rep

GEORGE TOWN, April 11 — The Penang High Court today dismissed a private firm’s defamation suit against DAP’s Teh Yee Cheu over his remarks on the illegal hill clearing of the so-called “Botak Hill” here.
Justice Hadhariah Syed Ismail ruled that Teh’s remarks on the illegal hill clearing of Bukit Relau by General Accomplishments Sdn Bhd (GASB) was not defamatory.
“I find that the published suggestions by Teh that provisions under the National Forestry Act 1984 and the Environmental Quality Act 1974 be looked at in the case against GASB is not defamatory against the plaintiff,” she said when delivering her judgement today.
She then dismissed GASB’s defamation suit against Teh and ordered GASB to pay costs of RM30,000 to Teh.
GASB and Tan Sri Tan Kok Ping had jointly filed a writ of summons against Teh for allegedly issuing slanderous statements to the press during his “hair shaving ceremony” on January 1, 2014.
In the suit filed in May 2014, they contended that Teh had maliciously issued statements that “inextricably imputed a disparaging, irreparably and falsified general perception of GASB”.

Today, Hadhariah also ruled that statements Teh had made against GASB and the hill clearing that was published by various media including The Malaysian Insider and Nanyang Siang Pau were not defamatory.
Teh’s counsel, Cheah Eng Soon, said the court has also agreed with his submissions that Teh’s remarks advising Tan to adhere to existing laws on hill clearing were not defamatory in nature.
On January 1, 2014, Teh shaved his head bald as a symbolic “protest” to what he deemed as insufficient action taken against GASB over the illegal hill clearing of Bukit Relau.
GASB was fined RM30,000 by the Penang Sessions Court in 2013 for failing to submit earthworks plan as required by Section 70A of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 but Teh felt this was not enough.
Teh held the head-shaving ceremony to push for more actions to be taken against GASB and also to push the firm to start rehabilitation works on the hill immediately.
He had called on the Forestry Department, the Department of Environment (DOE) and also the Drainage and Irrigation Department (DID) to visit the site and to also take legal action against the landowner in accordance to their respective acts.
- See more at: http://m.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/penang-high-court-rejects-botak-hill-defamation-suit-against-dap-rep#sthash.WRKK36Cu.dpuf

GEORGE TOWN, April 11 — The Penang High Court today dismissed a private firm’s defamation suit against DAP’s Teh Yee Cheu over his remarks on the illegal hill clearing of the so-called “Botak Hill” here.
Justice Hadhariah Syed Ismail ruled that Teh’s remarks on the illegal hill clearing of Bukit Relau by General Accomplishments Sdn Bhd (GASB) was not defamatory.
“I find that the published suggestions by Teh that provisions under the National Forestry Act 1984 and the Environmental Quality Act 1974 be looked at in the case against GASB is not defamatory against the plaintiff,” she said when delivering her judgement today.
She then dismissed GASB’s defamation suit against Teh and ordered GASB to pay costs of RM30,000 to Teh.
GASB and Tan Sri Tan Kok Ping had jointly filed a writ of summons against Teh for allegedly issuing slanderous statements to the press during his “hair shaving ceremony” on January 1, 2014.
In the suit filed in May 2014, they contended that Teh had maliciously issued statements that “inextricably imputed a disparaging, irreparably and falsified general perception of GASB”.

Today, Hadhariah also ruled that statements Teh had made against GASB and the hill clearing that was published by various media including The Malaysian Insider and Nanyang Siang Pau were not defamatory.
Teh’s counsel, Cheah Eng Soon, said the court has also agreed with his submissions that Teh’s remarks advising Tan to adhere to existing laws on hill clearing were not defamatory in nature.
On January 1, 2014, Teh shaved his head bald as a symbolic “protest” to what he deemed as insufficient action taken against GASB over the illegal hill clearing of Bukit Relau.
GASB was fined RM30,000 by the Penang Sessions Court in 2013 for failing to submit earthworks plan as required by Section 70A of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 but Teh felt this was not enough.
Teh held the head-shaving ceremony to push for more actions to be taken against GASB and also to push the firm to start rehabilitation works on the hill immediately.
He had called on the Forestry Department, the Department of Environment (DOE) and also the Drainage and Irrigation Department (DID) to visit the site and to also take legal action against the landowner in accordance to their respective acts.
- See more at: http://m.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/penang-high-court-rejects-botak-hill-defamation-suit-against-dap-rep#sthash.WRKK36Cu.dpuf