The Kampong Bohol incinerator protest saw the rise of a new form of citizens’ action

by K. Ong

Citizens are taking a more politically savvy approach towards activism

The recent decision by the government to shift the controversial 1,500-ton capacity incinerator from Kampung Bohol in Puchong to a less densely populated area showed a new model of ‘rakyat’ activism towards an unpopular government policy. It could perhaps be an indication of how future engagements between the government and the public would look like especially in relatively urban areas.

Politicians whether in the ruling coalition or in the opposition, NGOs and interested members of civil society would do well to learn important lessons from the no-incinerator campaign initiated by the affected citizens of Puchong and the surrounding areas which slowly gained a wider regional if not national appeal.

Background

Municipal waste disposal has been and still is a national problem as our national income increases and our waste disposal increases commensurately. The 15,000 tons of municipal waste generated nationwide needs to be disposed off in a cheap, efficient and safe manner. Traditionally, this meant waste disposal in landfills. The constraints of space especially in more densely populated urban areas and the dangers of waste run-off into the water table and other water sources means that other alternatives of waste disposal needed to be used.

An incinerator, which would burn the municipal waste, thus leaving only a small portion of residue would seem like one such plausible alternative. Small incinerators with capacities of less than 15 tons per day have been built in Malaysia previously in land scarce areas such as Pulau Langkawi, Pulau Pangkor, Pulau Tioman and Labuan. Since the main KL landfill at Taman Beringin would reach its capacity soon, KL would seem to be the natural location to build an incinerator with a high capacity to cater for the large and increasing waste volume in the Klang valley.

It is not easy to locate a site for an incinerator in KL given that the EIA guidelines require that no housing areas could be located within a 500m radius of the proposed incinerator site.

Finally, a site at Kampung Bohol, located near the Old Klang Road end of Jalan Puchong was chosen as the site.

Beginnings Of Resident Opposition

When news of the proposed incinerator and its location first surfaced, not many of the local residents in the immediate vicinity took notice or bothered to investigate the health impact that such an incinerator would have on the surrounding areas. Indeed, a resident who later became one of the committee members of the no-incinerator campaign, said that he was initially very sceptical of the dangers that such an incinerator would pose.

It was only after a few of the more pro-active residents began to investigate deeper into the issue by reading the EIA report, checking the websites of other anti-incinerator campaigns and consulting their own sources that a sense of urgency to launch a campaign against the location of this proposed incinerator emerged.

Thus a pro-tem committee was formed with the specific aim of campaigning against the location of the proposed incinerator. The committee consisted of concerned residents living in the surrounding areas. Most of the committee members were professionals of different races and of different professional experience.

Different Channels And Strategies Used

The committee took care to ensure that it was not seen to be taking political sides on this issue especially in terms of working with opposition parties. It used a number of creative ways of engaging with the authorities and at the same time promote public awareness of this issue.

For example, the committee arranged to meet the minister in charge of the project, senior ministry representatives, coalition politicians in the constituencies affected as well as experts who helped draft the EIA report to discuss the contents of the report.

Citizens can no longer be hoodwinked or ridden roughshod over by the authorities.

Many weaknesses of the EIA report were exposed in this meeting including the recommendation to move an army hospital near the proposed site but not a Tamil primary school which was also near the site. The technology of the proposed incinerator was also questioned and the fact that existing plants in Japan using the proposed technology had less than 10% of the capacity of the proposed Puchong plant was also highlighted.

The shortcomings of the EIA report was made known to the public via a website www.no-incinerator.com which was set up by committee members with the specific purpose of lobbying against the location of the incinerator.

The website was also used to obtain signatures for the online petition.

Articles in the printed press, Malaysiakini.com and independent assessments by local environmentalists were also posted on the site, which also has links to other anti-incinerator campaigns around the world. Through word of mouth, news about this site spread through cyberspace reaching Malaysians in other parts of the country and even concerned individuals from other countries.

The pro-tem committee also enlisted the help of the various residents’ associations in the affected areas. Petitions were given to these representatives for them to collect signatures from their respective areas.

Road shows were also conducted by committee members, who had gone through the EIA report in detail and were well versed with its contents. Armed with a small lorry, a makeshift sound system, flyers, some energetic and enthusiastic volunteers and a police permit, they managed to organize three outdoors meetings with residents of three affected areas.

At these talks, the audience numbering between 500 to 2,000 persons was told of the negative health impact of having an incinerator so close to their homes as well as the threat of depressed property prices, among others. Through these outdoor meetings, the cause of the pro-tem committee gained more publicity and more volunteers signed up to contribute to the campaign by providing donations, their expertise and publicity through their network of friends.

The campaign was gaining a life of its own and in recognition of the public outcry over the location of the proposed incinerator, the government finally relented and announced that it would relocate the incinerator.

Lessons Learnt

The no-incinerator campaign showed many interesting aspects of citizens’ activism, which politicians on both divides should take note of.

The first aspect is that citizens can no longer be hoodwinked or ridden roughshod over by the authorities. With the increase in the number of professionals and the rise in the education level especially in urban areas, citizens are capable of taking a critical look at government policies that directly impact their lives. The ability of concerned citizens to question the findings of a panel of ‘experts’ should be an encouragement to the person on the street and a warning to those who think that citizens can be easily intimated by a bunch of PhD’s.

The second aspect is that the citizens themselves are taking a much more mature and politically savvy approach towards activism. Many different channels - both formal and informal - were used to put pressure on the authorities. They were not averse to having consultations with the authorities. But neither were they easily duped into a wait-and-see attitude but took up their own initiatives to gain public support for their cause.

BEWARE Word has it that the authorities in Penang are considering a proposal to build an inicinerator, perhaps in the Jelutong area. So far, there has been little publicity about this proposal. And not surprisingly too: the Penang state government is still embroiled in a running battle with residents’ groups over its decision to steamroll the Penang Outer Ring Road project through. They obviously don’t want to alarm more people with the prospect of cancer-causing dioxin emissions from an incinerator. If this incinerator project is approved, the state government can expect strong resistance from civil society and residents groups such as Aliran whose office is in Jelutong.

Opposition politicians should also take note that the campaign did not depend solely on their role in raising objections to the project whether in parliament or in the public arena. Although the efforts of these opposition politicians would have increased publicity on this issue and thus put public pressure on the authorities, the resources that the citizens managed to rustle up on their own is a sign that opposition politicians must work that much harder to make themselves relevant to voters.

The third aspect is that the rise of the Internet has empowered citizens and curtailed the ability to keep the public in the dark on issues directly affecting them. It is perhaps a sign of things to come in the future - when the power of the Internet is harnessed along with a number of other creative channels to mobilize members of the public to act on an issue of local, regional or even national importance.

Conclusion

In retrospect, it is easy to comment and point out why the no-incinerator campaign in Puchong was a success. But things were never so certain in the midst of the campaign itself. It took the guts and determination of a few concerned residents to raise their voices and to push the issue into the public arena.

There is no guarantee that other such campaigns initiated by members of the public will achieve similar success. The local issues are always different and the local sentiment always shifting.

But this episode shows that the politics of engagement is changing and that politicians on all sides, NGOs and other members of civil society will need to change to adapt to these changing circumstances.

K. Ong works for a non-profit think tank in KL. He happens to live in one of the affected areas and accidentally bumped into many of the people who were directly and indirectly involved in this campaign.

Now e-mail us and tell us what you think.