THREE innocent lives were lost in the disastrous Baling flood that washed away at least 15 premises and severely damaged another 18. Nine schools were affected and over 1,400 people evacuated. The final toll could be higher. Is this the price of development that ordinary people must pay? 

On one hand, Energy and Natural Resources Minister Takiyuddin Hassan correctly observed that for 70 to 100 years, no disastrous flood had occurred in that area, though there may have been small ones. On the other hand, he not only did not give any explanation for this, but claimed the massive flood was a natural disaster, as no “active logging” was in progress. According to the local residents, this is not the first time a flood has occurred during heavy rain. 

The minister, by claiming the flood was a natural disaster, is pre-empting investigations and, in a veiled manner, suggesting to the investigators what their conclusion should be. This statement by the minister amounts to interference in investigations, which he says will be carried out by various government agencies.

Would any government department or agency investigating the disaster be bold enough to say it was a man-made disaster after the minister has said it was a natural disaster? A finding contrary to what the minister has said would be alleging that the minister was lying! Thus an investigation by government agencies would merely be an eyewash to placate the public. 

He rejected calls for a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to be set up to find out why this disastrous flood happened. Is there something to hide? 

Government agencies and departments are not competent enough parties to investigate this disaster due to the conflict of interest in their roles as agencies or departments involved in the approval, monitoring and enforcement. They cannot be investigating or auditing themselves. Furthermore, the minister, their political boss, has already publicly stated that the flood was a natural disaster.

From photographs circulating in the media, a large area of the hills can be seen to have been cleared of all vegetation and the soil left exposed to rainfall. Any child who has learnt about soil erosion could tell that heavy rains must have washed a lot of the exposed soil into the rivers.

There may be no active logging going on now, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a large area of the hills lies bare. Photographic evidence shows this. This is what needs investigation. How did the deforestation take place? Who approved it? Why was there no monitoring of the forest reserve? Why was a disaster in the making not seen by any government authority? Was there dereliction of duty by the officers who should have been monitoring the project to ensure all the mitigation and rehabilitation measures stated in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) were being strictly complied with?

According to Environment Department director-general Wan Abdul Latiff Wan Jaffar, EIA approval was given in 2013 for planting rubber on a 5,000ha area. But no monitoring was done by any agency until March 10, 2021, when a notice was issued to the project developer after it was discovered they had planted durian instead. For eight years, no authority thought it necessary to monitor work on the site to ensure compliance with the EIA. An inspection on May 24 (2021 or 2022?) found that no replanting of tree saplings had been done in Compartment 8 of the project. But this was too late to prevent the flood from happening.

Did all these non-compliances with the EIA not contribute to the massive floods? Why did the non-compliances take place? 

When an EIA is approved based on the assurances given therein, does the approving authority, or any other authority, have no responsibility to monitor how work at the project site is being carried out? 

Investigations by any government department are therefore not acceptable and an RCI should be set up to investigate how/why the various government agencies and departments responsible for guardianship of the forest reserve and compliance with the EIA did not see a disaster in the making, which took three innocent lives and caused so much destruction to property.

Why an RCI and not an ad hoc independent committee? An RCI is formed under the Commission of Enquiry Act 1950. The commissioners have the power to receive all evidence and examine all the persons regarding the matter in question. They also have the power to summon anyone in Malaysia to appear before them to give evidence, and to issue warrants of arrest if anyone refuses to give evidence. 

On the other hand, an executive appointed committee does not have a legal basis, let alone powers of an RCI, and it reports back to the executive. In the Baling flood case, the executive has already declared that the flood was a natural disaster, so the committee it sets up is for the purpose of confirming what the executive has already declared. – July 15, 2022.

*Ravinder Singh 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.