You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘siva temple’ tag.
Despite attempts by DBKL to ignore and deny the dangers of development on the steep hill slopes of Bukit Gasing, we have more landslips to share.
Updated photos on Gasing Meridian earthworks landslips
Meanwhile at foot of hill below Siva Temple near to Fraser Towers….
Residents of Fraser Towers have already lodged a complaint with the Engineering Department of MBPJ of the landslip
As PJ residents are persona non grata to DBKL, perhaps if you all share these photos widely, it might be picked up by DBKL. After all, a “Focus” page on The Star (Sunday, 11 March 2012) identified landslips as signs of landslide to come and should be reported to DBKL. The page is supported by JKR and division of JKR responsible for slope monitoring. It reported 16 fatalities each in Hulu Langat and Sungai Ruil in 2011 and destruction of 14 homes in the Bukit Antarabangsa 2008 landslide.
PS: According to the article, you can only call 999 if there is a landslide. Otherwise, you need to call the engineering department of your local authority (sic).
Bukit Gasing 29,May 2011
The Sivan Temple landslide is getting worse due to inaction by MBPJ. Will the temple wall collapse, bringing the whole temple structure down? To makes matters worse, the Sivan Temple has been re-opened to devotees recently.
11 Dec 08 : 8.00AM The Nut Graph
By KW Mak
Landslide in Bukit Antarabangsa (all pics courtesy of Raj Kumar)
THE landslide that claimed people’s lives and destroyed property in the wee hours of 6 Dec 2008 in Bukit Antarabangsa was an eerie reminder of the 1993 Highland Towers tragedy.
Almost like a knee-jerk reaction, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi declared an immediate stop to all hillslope development projects. At best, the premier’s statement would only put on hold any ongoing project for a month pending investigations into the safety of these projects. But it is certainly not possible to stop these projects indefinitely.
Any development permit that has already been issued to developers would have gone through all the necessary procedures. This would include any safety precautions, recommended by engineering and architectural experts, which need to be in place as part of the development.
The problem may not lie in the developer’s plans but in the monitoring work that should, by right, be done by local council officers. It bears remembering also that sometimes, in order to cut costs, developers do not carry out what is detailed in the plans. This is why local councils need to stringently and regularly inspect these work sites to ensure that nothing is amiss.
Should council officers be negligent and not bother to thoroughly inspect the progress of the work from start to finish, the local council itself should be liable for negligence. Except that Section 95(2) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 provides immunity to the council from legal suits due to such negligence, as was demonstrated in the Highland Towers case judgement.
And since it would take years for such defects to result in a landslide, trying to track down and pin the blame on the developer or all those responsible for the project would require a lot of effort and money.
Despite calls to amend that section of the law to ensure that local councils are more accountable, our elected representatives in Parliament have instead maintained the status quo.
As an aside, the Penang Municipal Council issued a stop-work order on a bungalow project in Batu Ferringhi after inspections found that the project did not construct proper drainage. Would the inspection have been carried out if the Bukit Antarabangsa disaster had not happened?
Liability: the answer?
However, even if the law was rectified, that itself would not be the answer to the predicament we face. The judge in the Highland Towers case stated that if the council was held liable, it would open the floodgates to further claims. “Projects will stall. The local council may go bust. Even if it does not, is it fair, just and reasonable that taxpayers’ money be utilised to pay the ‘debts’ of such people?” said Justice Abdul Hamid.
Making local councils pay for their liability aside, the other issue is how competent and responsible council employees are. But for that to happen, the state government must find the will to sack or at least transfer out officers found to be incompetent or corrupt, and promote or hire officers who are competent and trustworthy. This, of course, can only fully happen in an environment where meritocracy is the rule of the game.
Until these issues can be adequately addressed, the Selangor government has placed a total ban on the development of Class 3 and Class 4 slopes. That still leaves open for development Class 1 and Class 2 slopes, and ongoing projects with permits given prior to the change in state government following the 8 March elections.
Cause and effect
Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim has rightly said that one of the problems with property development is that it does not take into account surrounding areas. Local councils certainly need to have a more encompassing approach before approving any project.
Take for example the Sivan Temple atop Bukit Gasing, which presently has not submitted any plans to the local council. Although the case involves a place of worship in a forest reserve which has other legal implications aside from development permits, this development’s impact on surrounding areas is no different from that of any other hillslope development.
Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) engineers have warned that a preliminary study of the temple shows that it is now covering more floor space and preventing water from being absorbed into the ground, resulting in more rainwater running through the drainage system in the surrounding areas.
Because the drains around Bukit Gasing were not designed for the heavier flow, spillage and minor erosion of the surrounding areas have been noted. An estimated RM2 million is needed to redo the drainage system due to the temple’s development.
The question is who should foot the bill? Will it be the temple committee that authorised the temple’s extension from a small shack to the complex that it is now? Or will it be the state authority for declaring that temples, including this new complex, shall not be torn down pending further notice? Does the state government have the right to demand for payment from the temple committee, since there are no rules governing this?
These are questions that the state government will have to answer, as the answers will determine how local councils deal with the surrounding problems resulting from existing and future hillslope projects.
Where does this leave present and potential future victims?
Sadly, I have no answer, at least not for past mistakes that will only result in tragedies years later. What is clear is this: residents are victims of a flawed system that protects those who should be held responsible, and no amount of witch-hunting will address the injustice that has befallen them.
1. ^There are several definitions of slopes. The most relevant from a Malaysian context is available here. Briefly, it states that Class 1 slopes have a gradient of between 19 and 27 degrees. Class 2, between 27 and 35 degrees. Class 3 has a gradient of more than 35 degrees, and is listed as high risk for any development.
MBPJ councillor KW Mak hopes Kuala Lumpur City Hall does not approve any development project on their side of Bukit Gasing as there is ample evidence to show that the hill is prone to landslides once vegetation is removed.