1:28 AM
Internet at Every Where
When I was interviewed by a local press on whether the tsunami justifies a second link for Penang - presumably to allow Penangites to flee - my first reaction was that even the media had been hit by the tsunami of paranoia!
It seems to me that there are some interested parties who are cracking their brains to push their pet projects, by hook or by crook. I told the serious sounding journalist that there are at least two ways to answer the question: first, there are many ways to address the danger from tsunami - eg, warning from bay watchers were enough to get hotel guests off the beach. What we need is to extend this life-saving service to all beaches.
Second, the second link need to be compared to the efficiencies of other transport investments such as public transport before we can jump into it. This is not a joke because a day before - and a day after the tsunami - another group of journalists from Kuala Lumpur dropped in and asked in all seriousness, How long will Penang Island stay up in the sea?� I replied that Penangs hills go up to 3,000 feet above sea level and if they are flooded, surely much more would be flooded in the mainland!
These are two real-life stories from my tsunami experience. However, there is a palpable sea-phobia in George Town. People are officially warned to stay away from the sea. From now on, the sea which inspired so many poets in history, has become a menace.
Such thinking may be short-lived but it has certainly been exploited by some interested parties to get rid of anything they don't want by the seaside. For example, the seaside heritage, Koay Jetty, is given more doubts after the tsunami, even by some of my better friends. But such doubts somehow is not extended to the new flats which will be located exactly where the jetties now stand!
Now let�s get the fact right - the heritage area is not facing the open sea which is vulnerable to another tidal wave attack. But what if it was? Does this justify the heritage's removal - after all, the jetties (there are seven in all) have been sitting there for over 100 years without any hassles? I think a pro-heritage position would be more likely to justify some shelter for it than to demolish it!
If anything, the tsunami danger should warrant the chief minister to rethink his town planning to line the seashore with high-rises which inevitably will mass people and property onto the potentially dangerous shore line. One factor offered by some observers about the high death toll in Thailand is that some of the hotels there are located too close to the sea.
It can be said that heritage buildings had been there for historical reasons outside the control of its original builders - but the builders of these modern flats are not similarly constrained, and thus there should be more accountability for their choice of location.
If the sea-front heritage were to be demolished because of the tsunami, it would be a shame - the jetties were there precisely because the earlier labour force of Weld Quay were not given any land to build their homes. They - and their offsprings - had gone through the thick and thin of living on the sea. It seems odd that the current compassion to these dwellers must come with a condition that these heritage buildings be demolished.
It seems that there is an unspoken wish, over and above the flat builders obvious vested interests, to erase this sad part of George Towns working class history as if they are not happy to let more generations to be reminded of how the `founding fathers had not been able to provide their labourers some decent land to build a secure home.
If this official thinking is allowed to prevail then truly our history is on for a clean-up, not by the tsunami from the sea but from the modern version of the same wickedness and exploitativeness of the `founding fathers�.
Source:www.malaysikini.com
It seems to me that there are some interested parties who are cracking their brains to push their pet projects, by hook or by crook. I told the serious sounding journalist that there are at least two ways to answer the question: first, there are many ways to address the danger from tsunami - eg, warning from bay watchers were enough to get hotel guests off the beach. What we need is to extend this life-saving service to all beaches.
Second, the second link need to be compared to the efficiencies of other transport investments such as public transport before we can jump into it. This is not a joke because a day before - and a day after the tsunami - another group of journalists from Kuala Lumpur dropped in and asked in all seriousness, How long will Penang Island stay up in the sea?� I replied that Penangs hills go up to 3,000 feet above sea level and if they are flooded, surely much more would be flooded in the mainland!
These are two real-life stories from my tsunami experience. However, there is a palpable sea-phobia in George Town. People are officially warned to stay away from the sea. From now on, the sea which inspired so many poets in history, has become a menace.
Such thinking may be short-lived but it has certainly been exploited by some interested parties to get rid of anything they don't want by the seaside. For example, the seaside heritage, Koay Jetty, is given more doubts after the tsunami, even by some of my better friends. But such doubts somehow is not extended to the new flats which will be located exactly where the jetties now stand!
Now let�s get the fact right - the heritage area is not facing the open sea which is vulnerable to another tidal wave attack. But what if it was? Does this justify the heritage's removal - after all, the jetties (there are seven in all) have been sitting there for over 100 years without any hassles? I think a pro-heritage position would be more likely to justify some shelter for it than to demolish it!
If anything, the tsunami danger should warrant the chief minister to rethink his town planning to line the seashore with high-rises which inevitably will mass people and property onto the potentially dangerous shore line. One factor offered by some observers about the high death toll in Thailand is that some of the hotels there are located too close to the sea.
It can be said that heritage buildings had been there for historical reasons outside the control of its original builders - but the builders of these modern flats are not similarly constrained, and thus there should be more accountability for their choice of location.
If the sea-front heritage were to be demolished because of the tsunami, it would be a shame - the jetties were there precisely because the earlier labour force of Weld Quay were not given any land to build their homes. They - and their offsprings - had gone through the thick and thin of living on the sea. It seems odd that the current compassion to these dwellers must come with a condition that these heritage buildings be demolished.
It seems that there is an unspoken wish, over and above the flat builders obvious vested interests, to erase this sad part of George Towns working class history as if they are not happy to let more generations to be reminded of how the `founding fathers had not been able to provide their labourers some decent land to build a secure home.
If this official thinking is allowed to prevail then truly our history is on for a clean-up, not by the tsunami from the sea but from the modern version of the same wickedness and exploitativeness of the `founding fathers�.
Source:www.malaysikini.com
