CAP: AELB not adhering to IAEA recommendations on Lynas... by SMM Idris

 AELB not adhering to IAEA recommendations on Lynas

 Letter to the Editor                                                                                                                                                  11^th January 2012

 

The manner in which AELB and Lynas Corporation are conducting public disclosure makes a mockery of international best practices, safety standards and the various International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recommendations which the government and Lynas had pledged they will honour.

 

Public Information and disclosure

 

Among the other IAEA recommendations relevant to public disclosure are:

 

• Lynas should intensify its communication with interested and affected parties in order to demonstrate how it will ensure the radiological safety of the public and the environment.
• AELB should intensify its activities regarding public information and public involvement.

 

These recommendations are an implicit acknowledgment by the IAEA that Lynas and AELB have all along operated in a non-transparent, unacceptable manner and both entities have to improve their policies on public disclosure and consultation with the rakyat.

Over the New Year holiday on 2^nd January 2012, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) announced that the Malaysia Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) will display Lynas’ application for a temporary operating licence (TOL) for public feedback for barely 11 working days at several locations - AELB headquarters in Dengkil, Selangor; the Pahang State Secretariat, Kuantan; AELB’s site office at Lynas, Gebeng; and AELB’s east coast branch office Kemaman, Terengganu. Those who want to read the document have to submit a form provided at the locations before noon on Jan 20^th (sic).

These restricted locations and the process requirements are impediments to the public who want to view the document. The restrictions including the AELB form requirement is also tantamount to public intimidation.

In comparison, the Department of Environment (DOE) allocates a much longer review period without any requirement to fill up a form beforehand. The DOE allocates 5 weeks for a review of a Preliminary EIA (PEIA) report and 12 weeks for review of a Detailed EIA (DEIA) report. (For example, the DEIA Report for the Proposed Hydroelectric Project Hulu Terengganu by Tenaga Nasional Berhad was on public display from 30 Sept - 31 Oct 2008 at several specific locations and at all State offices of the DOE and the written comments must be submitted by 13 November 2008. The Executive Summary of the DEIA was also available online on the DOE website. The DEIA could even be purchased from a clearly indicated address. (Source:http://www.wwf.org.my/about_wwf/what_we_do/policy_main/policy_what_you_can_do/detailed_environmental_impact_assessment_for_public_review_2.cfm).  There was no requirement for members of the public who wanted to review the DEIA to fill up a form, as is currently required by the AELB).

It is important to note that the DOE EIA Review process is clearly explained in DOE documents such as its widely published EIA Guidelines, Handbooks and also on the DOE official website, including details of the composition of the Review Panel etc. In stark contrast, the AELB seems to be an ad hoc, non-transparent, non-independent and much hurried process which may be susceptible and has clearly led to unfair and unprofessional practices. This indicates that the AELB has poor governance and has not fulfilled the recommendations made by the IAEA report to significantly improve AELB, inter alia, AELB technical skills and capacity as well as independence in order for AELB to handle regulation of industries such as Lynas.

Other impediments include, inter alia, members of the public who made time to view Lynas’ application were given ONE hour to read the 300-400 page technical document, and barred from carrying cameras, handphones and videocameras when inspecting the document. Some members of the public was escorted to the AELB office by Lynas staff, once again indicating that AELB is not independent. This also reveals the utter disregard and contempt the authorities, including the AELB, have for public accountability and transparency. The level and quality of engagement and consultation with the rakyat have been woefully inadequate. The project was hurriedly approved in 2008, without public consultation; a series of public discussions that had been planned were abruptly cancelled after only two sessions. The MB of Pahang refused to meet and hold talks with groups who opposed the project and called them irrational.

 

By not adhering to a credible process of public review as recommended by IAEA, the AELB should reject the Lynas project application for a temporary or permanent operating licence.

 

IAEA general safety guideline on and Classification of Radioactive Wastes

 

According to the IAEA’s general safety guides (GSG) on Radioactive Waste Classification (GSG-1), the radioactivity level of Lynas’ WLP solid waste which is reportedly at 6.2 Bq/g is categorised as Low Level (radioactive) Waste. The IAEA GSG-1 states that wastes in this class requires robust isolation and containment for periods of up to 300 years and is suitable for disposal in engineered near surface facilities. The typical safe storage depth is from the surface down to 30 meters.

 

According to Dr Lee Chee Hong in his comments (August 2011) on the IAEA Report, if the classification of Radioactive Wastes Safety Guide (GSG-1) was to be enforced for the WLP residue, then the RSF (Residue Storage Facilities) disposal method proposed by Lynas would be violating the IAEA standards.

 

Thus, a temporary operating licence (TOL) for Lynas would be contrary to the IAEA standards, safety guidelines and its specific recommendations on how AELB and the Malaysian government should be managing Lynas.

 

TOL under Act 304 does not fulfill IAEA recommendations

 

The temporary operation licence (TOL) is a stipulation of the Malaysian Radiation protection (Licensing) Regulations 1986 of the Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984 (Act 304) – the main law governing radiation protection. However, Act 304 and its subsidiary regulations are sadly lagging behind international standards. Act 304 is very general in nature and woefully inadequate to handle rare earth processing plants especially the regulation of the safety aspects of the rare earth process, the radioactive waste disposal and storage, clearance threshold, radiation leakage, and health and safety damages caused by radioactive elements. Act 304 does not even regulate NORM (naturally occurring radioactive materials) and TENORM (technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials). More significantly, the Act invests wide ranging discretionary powers to the AELB and the Minister.

 

Thus, as far as the archaic Act 304 is concerned, theoretically, industries such as Lynas are potentially allowed to accumulate and dispose the water leach purification (WLP) radioactive solid waste residue on site if they obtained a written authorisation (e.g. TOL) from AELB. This is one way that Lynas can bypass the permanent waste storage impasse.

 

Given that the licensing and approval process hinges on the safe disposal and storage of radioactive wastes, it appears that Lynas has failed to come up with a credible solution to meet the conditions set out by the IAEA review. This is attested by the fact that Lynas has made five submissions (officially three) which were all rejected and the current one on display is the 6^th revised version (officially the 4^th).

 

According to Lynas Malaysia managing director Ahmad Marshal in a media event in December, the plan is to process the wastes into, among others, fertilisers and gypsum boards for sale. Under the current Act 304 and its subsidiary regulations that do not set disposal limits or the method of safe disposal and storage of radioactive wastes, what Lynas proposed could be done albeit with potential future consequences. It is left to the incompetent AELB alone to decide the exemption limits and methods for safe disposal and storage.

 

However, the TOL and its consequences would be contrary to IAEA standards, guidelines (e.g. the GSG-1) and specific recommendations for AELB and Lynas. IAEA recommendations have called for AELB to improve its human, financial and technical resources, competence and independence before it is deemed fit to regulate Lynas. To date there is no evidence that the Malaysian government and AELB have adhered to the IAEA recommendations. Currently, AELB cannot and is incapable of regulating Lynas and similar industries.

 

TOL is against Precautionary Principle

 

A temporary licence for activities generating radioactive wastes does not make sense neither is it based on international best practices principles – as once the wastes is produced, it is there. This is also not in keeping with the Precautionary Principle that Malaysia has agreed to in many environmental agreements and guidelines. The Precautionary Principle states that in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on the proponent. The principle promotes social responsibility to protect the public from harm.

 

As well the Malaysian authorities have failed to observe international best practices and legal principles other than the Precautionary Principle e.g. the Local Agenda 21 on sustainable development; public consultation and participation and the principle of prior informed consent; and public accountability and transparency.

 

AELB Independence: Ministry responsible is MITI or MOSTI?

The Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) indicated that AELB will meet on 30 January 2012 to decide on Lynas’ TOL application.  It is highly perturbing that MITI continues to overstep its jurisdiction by yet again overtaking the role of MOSTI/AELB in the Lynas regulation process.

When the PEIA and RIA were made available to the public as a result of public pressure, there were serious doubts on the whole approval procedure and due diligence process. In fact, the poor governance made the credibility of the regulatory process doubtful. The regulatory authorities revealed that they were incapable of safely monitoring the Lynas operation, the radioactive wastes storage, disposal and decommissioning process in the future. To compound the problem further, MITI overstepped its jurisdiction and became the self-appointed spokesman endorsing the safety of Lynas’s plant operations. As it is, MITI is not the qualified ministry for the governance of ultrahazardous radioactive activities and public health and safety concerns. This again shows the poor governance and lack of due diligence in the whole process.

The MB of Pahang had said that the radiation level from Lynas’ plant is lower than bitumen used to resurface roads. AELB’s previous public announcements have also stretched the public’s credulity to the limit e.g. AELB DG Raja Datuk Abdul Aziz Raja Adnan had in April said that Lynas’ radioactive waste was so safe ‘you can just tabur (scatter) everywhere’. Such unqualified endorsements that the Lynas plant was safe by both unqualified politicians and the civil authorities can only mean they have become the spokespersons for Lynas.

The ‘seamless’ roles of Lynas employees and AELB’s officials makes the latter’s independence and authority highly questionable. When Lynas revealed in May 2011 that it had paid a sum of money to the Malaysian authorities as an indemnity for radioactive waste as part of AELB requirement, the DG of AELB denied this. ‘It’s got nothing to do with AELB. You got to check with MIDA. Check with MITI’ he was quoted. Till today no information has been forthcoming from any authority.

This poor governance structure and non-transparency has resulted in the IAEA international experts to make a clear recommendation that the AELB/MOSTI must have independence from other influences in order to be able to regulate industries such as Lynas.

Conclusion

 

The AELB should not issue a temporary operating licence (TOL) to Lynas.

 

Further, for the Malaysian government to regain public credibility and confidence CAP-SAM urges the following:

• A judicial review of the government’s role and responsibilities in relation to public information disclosure and public participation;
• A transparent process with a detailed and integrated approach that incorporates a socio economic impact assessment, health and safety impact assessment, a detailed EIA and RIA which will be coordinated and reviewed by an independent panel of technical experts;
• A total review and revamp of Act 304 and its subsidiary regulations. At present it is a weak and toothless law and it needs to meet the requirements of international standards;
• AELB/MOSTI, DOE/MNRE, MIDA/MITI and MOH must be independent and must be seen to be independent when it comes to issues which are within their jurisdictions. They must exercise integrity, professionalism and competence in their duties and work. This is in line with good governance;
• MITI and MIDA (Malaysian Investment Development Authority) must beef up its capacities and expertise. There must be a review of MITI and MIDA and how it promotes foreign investments. They need to attract clean, sustainable and job creating industries instead of dirty toxic ones;
• MITI and MIDA should respect the authority and competency of the regulatory authorities and should not guarantee projects which have not been approved by other regulatory bodies;
• In the interest of good governance, there should be public disclosure and access to proposed MOUs with foreign investors. In light of this, the government must disclose how much it will have to pay Lynas Corp if the project is cancelled;
• The government must ensure that all impact assessment studies have high standards of integrity, professionalism and expertise. Consultants who fail to meet the standards should be deregistered and blacklisted; and
• The government must seriously improve its governance.

  

 

SM Mohamed Idris

President

Consumers Association of Penang /

Sahabat Alam Malaysia

OPEN LETTER: We must ALL VOTE & be Change Agents.. by Former Bar Council President Yeo Yang Poh

Former Bar Council President Yeo Yang Poh wrote an open letter to ALL Malaysians, to discharge our responsibilities as a voter and make those elected candidates to be accountable for their promises made during the election campaign. 

He believes that change and betterment are not empty dreams, if all of us play our respective parts.

Dear Fellow Malaysians, 

It is true that there are things that we Malaysians should be proud of, and be thankful for. It is equally true that many things are not well in our country. They have not been well for some time now.

Matters of safety and security, price hikes, education, issues of equal opportunities and equal treatment, constriction of various forms of freedom, marginalization of several segments of society, the failing justice system, corruption in the public sector, the rising denial syndromes, the arrogance of wrongdoers nourished by their repeated ability to get off scot-free, and the numbness of the public reaction towards misdeeds and the lack of accountability, just to describe a few. 

Many of the ills that we complain about in our society are the symptoms of the underlying causes. Some of the major root causes are:

(a) epidemic corruption in a system that does little to prohibit or redress it,

(b) lack of a system of transparency and accountability,

(c) the suppression of various freedoms so as to turn a silent majority into a silenced majority,

(d) a Government that is more interested in commanding than serving,

(e) a Parliament whose overwhelming majority cares more about power-consolidation than nation-building, and

(f) a weak "last bastion" in the form of a failing justice system. 

Can things be allowed to go on this way? Can we afford to do so?

Should our future generations suffer the consequences of our permissiveness?

It is quite obvious that we need a better Government and a better Parliament.

But that will not happen if we, the citizens of Malaysia , do little more than blaming the Government and criticizing our Members of Parliament. It is we who put our MPs in the Parliament. It is we whomust take the ultimate responsibility. The buck stops at each and every one of us. 

My earnest appeal to everyone is therefore as follows:

- discuss the need for a better Parliament and a better Government, with your family members, colleagues, friends and persons close to you;

- make it a point to go and vote in the next election, and to vote for change and for betterment;

discard the notion or excuse that your single vote will not matter;

- discard the notion or excuse that politics is dirty and all politicians are the same, and therefore that there is no point in voting;

- influence and encourage as many of your family members, colleagues, friends and persons close to you as possible, to come out and vote for change and for betterment in the coming election. 

It is meaningless for us to complain about our Parliamentarians and the Government, if we do not first discharge a simple but sacrosanct duty of choice.

Let us all take the time to look into the beautiful but expectant eyes of our children, and of the children of many others for whom we care. 

The future of our nation is meant for them. But millions of them cannot vote. They put their fate in our hands. They rely on us not just for their present living and support. They rely on us, too, to vote for a better future for them.

And after discharging our duty to vote, we must continue to be vigilant, and ensure that our elected representatives account for their actions, and make good their promises. 

I humbly suggest to you that change and betterment are not empty dreams, if all of us play our respective parts. I invite you, and I urge you, to answer my appeal as set out above.

Thank you. 

Yours sincerely,

Yeo Yang Poh

An open letter to MPs on Peaceful Assembly Bill.... by Bar Council President Lim Chee Wee

An open letter to MPs on Peaceful Assembly Bill

Lim Chee Wee

3:57PM Nov 28, 2011

Dear Wakil Rakyat,

You may have heard that the Malaysian Bar opposes the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 (“PA 2011”) on the grounds that it imposes unreasonable and disproportionate fetters on the freedom of assembly that is guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.

There are provisions in PA 2011 that are far more restrictive than the current law, such as the banning of “street protests” (assemblies in motion or processions) and the unlimited powers vested in the police to dictate the time, date, place and conduct of an assembly. 

There are also provisions in PA 2011 that are simply illogical.  As an example, although police do not need to be notified of a religious assembly, such an assembly cannot be held at a place of worship.

Furthermore, a person living within 50 metres of a kindergarten or school cannot hold an open house for a festival, a funeral procession or a wedding reception.

The Prime Minister, in his Malaysia Day speech on 15 September 2011, promised the Rakyat of the following:

I often opine that long gone is the era in which the government knows everything and claims monopoly over wisdom. . . .

The government will also review Section 27 of the Police Act 1967, taking into consideration Article 10 of the Federal Constitution regarding freedom of assembly and so as to be in line with international norms on the same matter. . . . (emphasis added)


Be confident that it is a strength and not a weakness for us to place our trust in the Malaysian people’s intelligence to make decisions that will shape the path of their own future. . . .

It is absolutely clear that the steps I just announced are none other than early initiatives of an organised and graceful political transformation. 

It stands as a crucial and much needed complement to the initiatives of economic transformation and public presentation which the government has outlined and implemented for over two years in the effort to pioneer a modern and progressive nation. . . .

In closing, I wish to emphasise that free of any suspicion and doubt, the Malaysia that we all dream of and are in the process of creating is a Malaysia that practices [sic] a functional and inclusive democracy where public peace and prosperity is preserved in accordance with the supremacy of the constitution, rule of law and respect for basic human rights and individual rights.



'Outrageous to prohibit processions'

PA 2011 is neither consistent with “international norms”, nor “in accordance with the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law and respect for basic human rights and individual rights”. 

Instead, the Bill will take us further away from being “a modern and progressive nation”.

It is outrageous that assemblies in motion are prohibited.

Assemblies in motion provide the demonstrators with a wider audience and greater visibility, in order for others to see and hear the cause or grievance giving rise to the gathering. 

Assemblies in motion has been described as “a potent method of expression and is a common phenomenon in democratic societies”[1].  

History is replete with peaceful assemblies in motion, which were agents of change and of good.

Processions led to nation's founding

On 27 February 1946 Onn Jaafar, founding father of Umno and the grandfather of our present Minister for Home Affairs, led a procession of 15,000 individuals to protest the establishment of the Malayan Union, which disregarded the interests of the Malay Rulers and the Malays.

This was the first of a series of processions that successfully opposed the Malayan Union, and later led to our nation’s independence. 

On Feb 27, 2008, the then-Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi led 20,000 people in a one-kilometre procession from the Batu Pahat Umno office to the stadium to commemorate this rally.

There have been other processions calling for the abolition of the Internal Security Act 1960, rights of minorities and electoral reforms.

For the Malaysian Bar, we organised the Walk for Justice, which was held on Sep 26, 2007, to call for a royal commission to investigate the VK Lingam video clip and the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission, both of which were subsequently set up by the government.


The present prohibition of procession robs the rakyat of a right that currently exists under Section 27 of the Police Act, which regulates “assemblies, meetings and processions”.

Elsewhere, history is full of various peaceful processions led by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr and Nelson Mandela, to name but a few, which brought an end to oppressive laws, policies and regimes.

It is ironic that the government now wants to prohibit the very processions that led to the founding of our nation, and others that moved the prime minister to promise legislative reforms. 

These promised reforms now strike back at the very demonstrations that catalysed them.

The Malaysian Bar is steadfast in its stand and determination that PA 2011, in its current form, must not become law. 

The Malaysian Bar is resolute that any attempt to regulate a fundamental liberty guaranteed under the Federal Constitution must only be done after due consultation with all stakeholders, including opposition parliamentarians and civil society groups.

No other choice 

To this end, the Malaysian Bar has proposed an alternative bill to be considered, and calls for PA 2011 to be remitted to a parliamentary select committee for consideration. 

At the second reading of PA 2011, we ask that you, as a wakil rakyat, support our call.


It is not an exaggeration to say that tomorrow, you will hold the liberty of the rakyat in your hands.  We ask that you treat it with the deference it deserves. 

Now, more than ever, you must remember that you were elected as a representative of the people, to carry out responsibilities as a 'wakil rakyat'.

Please do not put blind obedience to party and partisanship before your duties as a servant of the people.  The rakyat should not be made to suffer the consequences of party politics.  PA 2011 is an unjust law, being made in undue haste, which has received the condemnation of the Rakyat.  

There can be no other choice.

Do not pass PA 2011.  Support our alternative bill and our call for a Parliamentary Select Committee.



Yours faithfully,

Lim Chee Wee


President
Malaysian Bar
 


[1] Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in Leung Kwok Hung & Ors v Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (FACC Nos. 1 & 2 of 2005, at para. 3).

TMI: Losing the Talent Gap with our Universities... World Bank

Malaysia attractive to businesses but lacks talent, says World Bank

By Lee Wei Lian

November 21, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 21 — A World Bank report said today that Malaysia is at risk of developing two sides to its economy as its investment incentives shine but its internal talent lags behind.

This comes as Malaysia rose five spots this year to 18th in the World Bank’s ease of doing business index and was also ranked 21st most-competitive country by the World Economic Forum.

The World Bank report noted that Malaysia greatest advantage is its low-cost base and not its skills which are close to the levels seen in low-income countries.

“Malaysia is a very competitive country in the sense that it can provide businesses with an attractive package with which to compete in global markets,” said the report, noting that the package included infrastructure, regulations, fiscal incentives and political stability.

It added however that Malaysia could realise larger gains by tackling structural reforms to increase competition and competencies in the economy rather than improving the business environment.

The report said the Global Locations Index prepared by global consulting firm A.T. Kearney, which ranked Malaysia third out of 50 countries for offshoring and outsourcing services, revealed “reasons for concern rather than encouragement.”

“What emerges from analysing this index is that Malaysia ranks highly because its business environment, while not at the level of advanced economies, compares very favourably against lower-income countries, while labour costs remain much closer to lower-income countries than advanced economies,” said the World Bank. “Malaysia’s performance in skills is its weak point.”

The report also noted a “worrisome” trend of an increasing gap between the University of Malaya (UM) and the National University of Singapore (NUS), Southeast Asia’s leading university.

“The gap between UM and NUS has been high and generally increasing, especially in the sciences,” said the report.

“There is a need to improve the performance of outcomes of universities,” the World Bank’s senior country economist for Malaysia, Frederico Gil Sander, told The Malaysian Insider in an interview.

Sander (picture) also said that the country needed to put structural reforms as recommended by the New Economic Model (NEM) on the “front burner” with the implementation of projects.

“The strategic reform initiatives need to be implemented in parallel and with the same intensity,” he said.

Since taking office in 2009, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has initiated a reform agenda which included a government and economic transformation programme to be driven by the special purpose performance management unit Pemandu.

Critics say that the lack of radical reforms so far however effectively amounted to policy tinkering that would deliver only lacklustre results.

Umno veteran and former Finance Minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said earlier this month that Najib’s reforms appeared to be coming in “dribs and drabs”.

Some analysts say however that the prime minister is constrained by hardliners in his party who would be opposed to widespread economic reforms that could threaten the rice bowls of politically-connected businessmen.

Bolehland’s Bunch of No-Nos... By Martin Jalleh

Bolehland’s Bunch of No-Nos By Martin Jalleh   Najib has no balls Muhyiddin has no brains Hishammuddin has no integrity.   Rais Yatim has no sense Zahid has no defence Nazri has no consistency.   Palanivel has no merit Yen Yen has no explanation Peter Chin has no energy.   Shafie Apdal has no clout Noh Omar has no answers Mohamed Yakcop has no transparency.   Shahrizat has no “beef” Kong Cho Ha has no backbone Liow Tiong Lai has no sincerity.   Ismail Sabri has no price controls Ahmad Shabery has no medals Idris Jala has no sagacity.   Ongkili has no innovation Douglas Uggah has no enthusiasm Shaziman has no accountability.   Tsu Koon has no leadership Dompok has no support Subramaniam has no empathy.   Rosmah has no self-control  Ezam has no real issues Khairy has no decency.   MIC has no voice MCA has no choice Gerakan has no stability.   Judiciary has no honour Police has no independence AG has no impartiality.   MACC has no results MCMC has no logic EC has no credibility.   Parliament has no vibrancy Speaker has no fairness Civil service has no quality.   Himpun has no relevance Jais has no evidence Perkasa has no respectability.   Utusan Malaysia has no ethics Umno’s papers have no limits MSM have no objectivity.   Umno has no shame It has made no changes It has no morals and honesty.   BN has no future A coalition of no principles The government has no dignity.   Bolehland will have no money     The country will have no hope A pariah nation – Asia’s tragedy!   Say “NO!” to Umno Say “NO!” to BN Say “NO MORE!”   (31 Oct. 2011)