Slippery slopes of pathetic excuses

When things go wrong, stick to the facts and address weaknesses instead of making false accusations and ignoring real problems.

ONE of the advantages of being a university lecturer is that we often get to read very good work from our students.

Jeong Chun Phuoc is a PhD student of mine and according to his work for me and his publications, it is clear that the laws regarding hillslope developments are poor and poorly enforced.

Before we go on, I mention Jeong by name not because I favour him over my other students, but I seriously don’t want to be accused of plagiarism. Unlike some professors I won’t mention.

Anyway, the Environmental Impact Assessment requirements for hillslope developments do not require several key things, such as rainfall patterns and geological reports.

This does not mean, however, that these things can’t be demanded for by the authorities.

Look, the country has faced landslides before and, more often than not, they have been as the result of heavy rain.

The volume of rainfall has become more intense (with some theories laying the blame on climate change) and this means greater danger.

This is nothing new, and therefore not to consider such things is negligent. The deaths in Penang due to the recent landslide have to be subject to a thorough and independent investigation.

If the work being done was care- less and if there were things that could have been done to mitigate such events, then this must be exposed.

It is no good saying that this is the work of god.

If there were things that could have been done, then they should have been done.

And this is something that can’t be blamed on the previous government. DAP has been leading the Penang government since 2008.

In 10 years, Pakatan Rakyat and now Pakatan Harapan have had more than enough opportunities to impose good practices in the manner of how land in the state is being used, regardless of the weaknesses of the existing laws and the practices in other states.

Meanwhile, the comedy of Umno continues. The ongoing spate of arrests and investigations by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has recently been compared to Operation Lalang of 1987.

It has been alleged that the cur- rent government is unfairly quashing dissent and in that way is ensuring a weak opposition and one-party rule.

Oh, the irony. As if the previous government never tried to quell dissent.

Let me just explain a few things. Firstly, Operation Lalang used the Internal Security Act, which means that people were being detained without trial.

All those now charged with money laundering, criminal breach of trust and corruption will face trials in open court.

Secondly, those detained under Operation Lalang were never accused of any specific crime but were instead detained under the flimsy pretext of protecting national security.

And to use more recent history, there were scores who were investigated and charged because they voiced opinions that the previous government did not like.

Those being investigated and charged now are not being oppressed for political beliefs or dissenting views. They are being accused of common crime, pure and simple.

There has to be evidence offered to the court and then based on that evidence, a conviction occurs or not.

This could take years and the opportunity for defence is there. Unlike under the dead and unmissed ISA.

So, there is a huge difference between what is happening now and what happened 30 years ago.

If Umno wants to be a strong opposition (and it should try), perhaps it would be better to stop making pathetic excuses for people who are associated with such gross corruption and find some better leaders instead.

Stop making pathetic excuses for people who are associated with such gross corruption and find some better leaders instead.