I REFER to an article by The Malaysian Insight, dated November 9.

To facilitate understanding of opportunity cost and financial impact on stopping land reclamation and development on hill slopes in Penang, I wish to share this story, which happened to me.

On the morning of November 9, my wife took fancy to a plastic bag of cut and dressed pineapples on sale at a stall in Ipoh Lane, outside the Jelutong Market.

The bag contained one half each of two different fruits, sold for RM3, with a piece looking very ripe and the other, half-ripe.

At the coffee shop, when I was ordering food, she ate the ripe half, relishing every bite, while I was left with the less desirable half.

I took a big bite of what was left to me, got the biting feeling on my taste buds and had to abandoned the rest… about 90%.

While the pack of pineapples had cost me RM3, I would apportion RM2 for the fruit that my wife consumed, while the fruit left to me would be worth only RM1.

Since I consumed only 10% of the portion, we jointly enjoyed RM2.10 of the fruit, which cost RM3, or a utility of 70%... in the jargon of economists.

Now, let’s get back to the more important issue of the financial impact of stopping land reclamation and development on hill slopes on Penang island.

What civil society is harping on is analogous to the (in)famous “kiasi-kiasu” attitude of a portion of The Little Red Dot’s population.

Some two decades ago, some Singaporean leaders advised its ageing citizens to take advantage of the currency exchange rate and Johor’s lower living costs (inclusive of real property and services) to consider retiring there.

Kudos to those who had the foresight to plan and realise the Iskandar Corridor, as well as the support of Johor’s sultan and rakyat.

For Penang folk, short of living in northern Perak or southern Kedah, both of which have lower property prices (but still rising), another option is to live in Seberang Prai and commute to Penang island for work.

In the absence of a good public transport system like the LRT, this will translate into more private cars on the road. Without federal intervention, the realistic answer for a land-scarce state is using land reclamation to finance the LRT.

Stopping development on the island’s hill slopes will result in landowners invoking Section 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 to seek compensation.

Have the Penang state administration and civil society calculated the estimated cost of compensation to owners of land below the 250ft contour, zoned for “housing purposes”?

Another option for the bureaucrats to consider is to use the Land Acquisition Act 1960 to acquire all land where existing detached/semi-detached houses are built on, and subsequently, increase the density from as low as six units per acre to 87 units per acre or more. This has the effect of improving the efficiency of land use by more than 13 times!

Again, have the bureaucrats and civil society calculated the costs of acquisition?

In 1982, when none of the appraisers in the present Penang Island City Council (MBPP) Valuation Department had yet entered service, the department was tasked with computing the financial impact of disposing at market prices residential and commercial properties to their incumbent tenants and lessees. With our handheld calculators, we had the figures ready in one week.

Now, with a computerised programme worth millions of ringgit and presumably ongoing preparations for the next revaluation under Section 137 of Local Government Act 1976, the task of computing the financial impact would be much easier.

The more difficult part would be forecasting the social impact.

How will Penang folk react to the respective views put forward by elected representatives and the different lobbies of civil society, since both sides claim to echo the sentiment of Penang Lang?

More importantly, some of those now shouting about the rape of the hills, especially those who own and live in detached/semi-detached houses in low-density precincts, may then be screaming molestation of individual rights if their houses are compulsorily acquired.

The bottom line for all Penang folk are the following considerations:

(a) For owners and tenants of these detached/semi-detached houses: “Will you give up your pound of flesh in the face of public demand supported by a willingness to pay?”

(b) For those not owning or staying in detached/semi-detached houses in low-density neighbourhoods: “Will you fund the local and state government’s acquisition so that you can keep the sea and hills as your pound of flesh?”

I reckon that before the next consultation or confrontation between Penang’s bureaucrats and civil society, the financial impact needs to be ascertained.

So, will both sides please do your sums now?

Undoubtedly, the state administration has the advantage of having the MBPP Valuation Department doing the calculation, while civil society may have to engage private appraisers.

Thank you.

* Chow Siew Cheong reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.