Debating Bakun
Participants,
Issues, Tactics
|
The Bakun Dam has been the subject of debate for nearly two decades. During this time a large mass of materials have been generated, documenting this debate, and that can provide the basis for a better understanding of how a project of this kind, and development issues generally, are presented and debated in public. These materials can also provide a basis for discussing the role of the media in debates about such projects, and about development. While the Bakun Dam has been debated extensively, this debate has often been severely circumscribed. Obviously, the merits of a project as important as the Bakun Dam should be publicly debated, so that those affected, whether directly (including those living near the dam), or indirectly (other Malaysian citizens, who may be called on to subsidize the project), can contribute to an informed decision. It has become well-established that the effectiveness and legitimacy of environmental impact assessment processes and related decisionmaking are closely dependent on the openness, access and transparency of these processes. For example, Article 10 of the Rio Declaration from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development noted that "at the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings shall be provided." In Malaysia, however, this debate, and public discussion generally, has been hindered by restricted access to information, and limitations on media coverage of opposing points of view. It may indeed be argued that it has only been because of these restrictions that the project, in the face of its many technical, economic, and environmental difficulties, is still being seriously considered. While Canada and other nations have, increasingly, rejected large dams (as reflected in recent experience in British Columbia and Quebec), this technology is still being promoted in countries like Malaysia, in part because the political environment hinders the open debate that has led to its rejection elsewhere. In the absence of open accountability, proponents within both government and the private sector are able to seek large profits from the project, while discounting those costs--economic, environmental, and social--that will be borne by Malaysian society. Essential information concerning the project has often been inaccessible. For example, the 17 feasibility and design studies made on the dam since it was first discussed, long remained classified under the Official Secrets Act. In a recent study of public participation in the Bakun controversy, Caroline Spires concluded that while Malaysian federal and state environmental impact assessment regulations make considerable provisions for public participation, these provisions have not been respected in the Bakun EIA. Instead, there has been considerable secrecy and obfuscation. Perhaps not unexpectedly, lack of public access to information and to decisions became itself a major focus of controvery between 1994 and 1996, displacing to some extent attention to the actual issues at stake in the project.
In the absence of genuinely open access to information, media coverage of the controversy tends to focus on the government view, with mention of opponents' views limited to indirect references. Restrictions on information have permitted proponents to present their own interpretation of events. For example, before release of the EIA reports Ting was able to present them as concluding that the project would have "no adverse impact to the surroundings". The government even asserted, without effective challenge in the mainstream media, that the dam would have environmental benefits, including less air pollution, flood control, reduced soil erosion, parks and wildlife sanctuaries. Similarly, it has been difficult even to discuss who will benefit from the project. While there is evidence that beneficiaries will be limited to Ting and other members of the Malaysian business community, as well as foreign companies selling technology or expertise, their interests have tended in public debate to be conflated with the national interest, through repeated assertions by government and business that the project will serve national economic needs. Official publications provide indications of government and project proponent perspectives on the controversy. These publications generally aim to demonstrate that the project will have a range of positive benefits, for Malaysians generally, and for those directly affected, while potential negative impacts can be prevented or moderated through appropriate design and management of the project. The impacts mentioned in Chapter Three are often dismissed as unlikely to occur, or avoidable. In some cases, these documents provide various claims regarding the positive environmental impacts of the Bakun Project. For example, SNREB (1996) argues that the project will assist in efforts to address global warming and acid rain (by displacing thermal energy sources), while improving downstream water quality. Often, these publications invoke foreign expertise in support of these claims. These strategies are commonly
encountered in the promotion of large dam projects. As Patrick
McCully notes: "While the drawbacks of dam projects are
consistently belittled by the dam-building lobby, the benefits
they provide are regularly exaggerated. One consistent misrepresentation
is to play down the inherent conflicts between the different
uses of a dam. Maximizing power production, for example, means
keeping a reservoir high; flood control requires keeping it low
to provide a space for absorbing flood waters. Minimizing the
rate of reservoir sedimentation on a highly seasonal river Despite these trade-offs, claims of the benefits provided by each purpose of the dam sometimes appear to be made as if that particular purpose was the dam's only function. Dam proponents also change their claims of the chief reason for building an individual dam according to perceived political advantage. When floods happen along the Yangtze, for example, Three Gorges is touted as a flood control project; when China's great need for electricity is being discussed, it is chiefly a hydropower dam. Regardless of the promises made before the dam is complete, the priority given to its various functions will invariably be based on political and economic power." Sources: Prominent coverage has been provided to official reassurance that the impacts of the project will be minor, or entirely positive; and that the government and its consultants had studied the project very carefully, and would ensure that it had been designed and would be carried out so as to benefit all affected. For example, on announcing the revival of the project in September 1993, Energy, Telecommunications and Posts Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu noted that "The Government will give special consideration to the project to ensure it does not harm the natural environment and ecology". This expression of reassurance is sometimes linked to statements of confidence in scientific expertise. For example, the Minister of Science, Technology and Environment Datuk Law Hieng Ding stated in October 1992, that he hoped "all quarters concerned with the project, including ecologists, biologists and other reasonable non-governmental organizations, would come up with constructive comments based on scientific researches and proofs and not on fortuities, sentiments or emotions there were many people talking about Bakun but so far most had little or no scientific research or proof to support their claims either for or against the project." Similarily, opponents have been described as unqualified, and providing advice contrary to that provided by the "experts". For example, Energy, Telecommunications and Posts Minister Datuk Seri Samy Vellu dismissed criticisms of environmentalists, stating that "World experts have found it feasible and viable." For a Malaysian government perspective on the project see: "Bakun: A Dam to Power our Future". For another government perspective on the project, explaining its rationale in terms of national energy policy, its economic aspects, the history of the project, and its environmental implications, see: "Bakun Hydroelectric Project":. Sources: Coverage has also been provided for statements of various interest groups and other entities (domestic and foreign) expressing their support and solidarity for the project. Sources: Various rhetorical devices also
discourage dissent. For example, those affected have been urged
to be willing to make sacrifices for the good of Malaysia. The
implicit message is that to protest is to be selfish and unpatriotic.
Opponents are also described as being influenced by foreigners.
In February 1995, for example, one government minister said of
Friends of the Earth Malaysia (SAM) that "If they follow
the dictates of the western Sources: In the face of the persistent secrecy regarding the Bakun Project, many of the objections of those opposed to the project have focused less on its specific impacts, than on the need for greater openness, transparency and accountability in decision-making regarding the project. Source: A preliminary comparison of media coverage of the project in the mid-1980s, and since its revival in 1993, suggests that the media has become less able or willing to report criticisms or opponents' views of the project. While several fairly critical accounts of the project are available from the mid-1980s, including newspaper stories focusing almost entirely on the statements of opponents, such accounts become quite scarce in the 1990s. Sources: Reflecting efforts to present their position on the issue, project opponents and concerned organizations have prepared a variety of documents, ranging from books, to research reports, tabloid reports, and statements and declarations. Many of these documents draw on the international literature concerning the environmental and social aspects of dams. Sources: Opposition political parties, including the Democratic Action Party, have also prepared publications on the project, at least during the first phase of the controversy, in the 1980s. The media have also reported on opposition members' of parliament calls for more information to be made available on the project, as well as their statements that the concerns of local residents are legitimate, and should be addressed, and that sceptism concerning the claims of experts are legitimate. For example, in the Borneo Post, October 1, 1993, Member of Parliament for Kuching Sim Kwang Yang said "mere assurance from experts along cannot be accepted blindly by the people in supporting the project, as requested by the Energy Minister Datuk Samy Vellu." "This is because many environmental disasters of the world involving large dams like the Aswan High Dam in Egypt have also been designed by experts." Source: While newspaper accounts of the project have tended to focus on the pronouncements of the governments and project proponents, more balanced presentations are also available. For example, several business and news magazines have presented in-depth accounts of the project and of Ekran Berhad. These accounts have often provided more sophisticated and reliable reports on the financial implications of the project, and the close relationships between Ekran Berhad, other companies, and government officials. Sometimes these accounts begin to approach investigative journalism. However, and perhaps inevitably, these accounts often fail to adequately examine aspects of the project of less interest to the business community, such as environmental impacts, and the views of affected indigenous peoples. Sources: |