SKLTS - More questions to DBKL and DOE

It is most shocking that EIA Report for the construction of a solid waste transfer station named South Kuala Lumpur Transfer Station (SKLTS) is not available in Bandar Puchong Jaya Police Station.

For such an important project which would have a deep impact on the living and environment quality of the Puchong folks, it is totally unacceptable that the EIA report is not available in certain places, especially when it has been highlighted in the press that Bandar Puchong Jaya Police Station shall have one report for public viewing.

Therefore, I would like to call for a postponement of the closing date for members-of-public to raise their opinions and objections to the Department of Environment (DOE), as this implies that members-of-public residing around Bandar Puchong Jaya is indirectly denied their chances and opportunities to read, understand the content of the EIA, which only then they can write in their opinion or objection towards the EIA report.

Postpone the closing date

In lieu of this, it is also advisable for the authority to make one copy of the report available not only in Puchong Jaya Police Station, but also in popular places like IOI Mall or Puchong Tesco Hypermarket so that more people can read and understand the various environmental impacts of the project.

After failing to read the expensive EIA Report in Bandar Puchong Jaya Police Station, I had no way but to rush to the Petaling Police Station located along Jalan Klang Lama, Kuala Lumpur.

The EIA report mentions that the site is located within the Bukit Jalil - Seputeh strategic zone which has the largest residential area in KL, with a total of 79,323 houses in 2000. This immediately poses the very first mind-boggling question: Why DBKL still proceed to build such a transfer station in a dense-populated residential area?

DAP Selangor is equally shocked to learn that Selangor State Government as well as the Majlis Puerbandaran Subang Jaya and Majlis Perbandaran Petaling Jaya were not even consulted on the project, implying that the KL City Hall has not been consultative not only with the residents concerned (especially those residing on the Selangor border) as well as Selangor State Government and Local Municipalities in Selangor.

More than half obejcted the project

Despite the technical parts of the EIA Report, the second question that would raise many queries is that there are only a total of 487 people interviewed on the acceptance of the proposal. This is reported in the press which it itself is already a question as to how the views of 487 persons can represent the views of an estimated 100,000 people residing around the area? To carry out any public survey, it is normal that a sampling of 1000 interviews is the minimum in order to reduce errors.

The public survey generated form the EIA report also informed that a total of 226 out of 487 residents (or 66.9% of the total residents) had expressed their disagreement towards the project. Cy-waste, the project proponent of SKLTS also claimed in it’s EIA report that the public used to misunderstand that SKLTS is a solid waste incinerator or landfill project, and that they will “employ professional PR firm to undertake the dissemination of correct information and to educate the public on the positive impacts of the project has on the environment”

This is not the impression given when according to the Star dated 20th January 2006, Cy-waste Sdn. Bhd. Chief Executive Officer Daud Ahmad was reported as saying “We held a dialogue with residents from the area in December and they must be satisfied with our answers, which is why there is no objection so far''.

I have earlier asked that if Cy-waste had organized the said dialogue with residents from the area in December 2005, why now the residents would turn their back on them roughly one month later. Who exactly had Cy-waste met on December 2005? How did they conduct the dialogue?

It would seems that my earlier question coincide well with the findings in the EIA, which unfortunately affect the credibility of Cy-waste as there are inconsistency in their answer.

KL Structure Plan 2020 has identified the site to be a waste disposal site. The land title has been specifically identified that it be used as a waste facility. Are there not any objections from the residents to convert the area to waste facility? Is DBKL prepared to hold the project until further consultation with Selangor State Government and MPSJ?