The seabed question Dapsy won’t answer

The Ecological and Climate Network (Jedi) refers to Penang DAP’s youth wing (Dapsy) statement accusing civil society groups of spreading “propaganda” over the legality of the Penang reclamation project.

We wish to state clearly: we respect the Court of Appeal’s decision. That is precisely why we are relying on the court’s written judgment, not merely the political interpretation of it.

Jedi was one of the appellants in this case, together with the affected fisherfolk and Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM). Therefore, our concern is not based on hearsay or political spin, but on the actual legal proceedings and the written grounds of judgment.

Dapsy cannot selectively celebrate the dismissal of the appeal while ignoring one of the most serious findings in the judgment: that the relevant planning authorities had no power to grant planning permission for reclamation over the territorial sea and seabed.

The Court of Appeal referred to the Territorial Sea Act 2012 and noted that the territorial sea, including its bed and subsoil, is vested in the federal government and exercisable by the Agong.

Therefore, the issue is not whether the appeal was dismissed. We accept that it was.

The issue is whether Dapsy and the Penang state government are prepared to respect the full reasoning of the court, including the finding that state planning authorities had no power to approve reclamation over the seabed.

Respecting the court decision means respecting the whole judgment and not only the part that is politically convenient.

The court’s finding raises serious public interest questions.

If state planning authorities did have power over the seabed, then what legal authority did they rely on to commence reclamation and grant planning permission?

Was there federal authorisation? Was there a cabinet decision? Was there a specific permit or approval to occupy, fill, and transform the territorial sea and seabed?

These are not propaganda questions. These are legitimate legal and public accountability questions arising directly from the Court of Appeal’s written judgment.

It is also important to distinguish between different types of approvals.

A structure plan is a planning policy document.

National Physical Planning Council (NPCC) involvement concerns national physical planning.

An environmental impact assessment approval is environmental approval.

None of these automatically answers the central question now raised by the Court of Appeal: who has the legal authority over the territorial sea and seabed before reclamation is completed?

Instead of attacking fisherfolk, NGOs and civil society groups, Dapsy should answer the legal issue exposed by the Court of Appeal.

If the state is confident that all necessary approvals were obtained from the correct authority, then it should disclose clearly: who gave permission to reclaim the seabed? Under what law? And where is the written authorisation?

The fisherfolk and civil society groups did not disrespect the court. They brought a major public interest issue before the judiciary. Even though the appeal was dismissed, the judgment has raised an important precedent-setting question for all reclamation projects in Penang and the rest of Malaysia.

The real disrespect to the court is not asking questions based on the judgment. The real disrespect is cherry-picking the judgment, but ignoring the court’s finding that the state planning authorities had no power to grant planning permission for the reclamation over the territorial sea. – Jedi

Jedi advocates the rights of people to a safe, healthy, sustainable environment by promoting climate change awareness and environmental protection.

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: