Share This

Tuesday, January 9, 2024

Penang scheduled water cut inevitable from January 10~14, 2024

 

Joint effort: Fourteen companies helped put 18 water tanks – each able to hold about 2,000 litres – in strategic locations in Relau, the south of Penang island, for residents to get water during the scheduled water cut from Jan 10 to 14. — LIM BENG TATT/The Star

GEORGE TOWN: With three days to go before 70% of Penang residents will be without water supply, Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow says the repair work at the Sungai Dua treatment plant is necessary to prevent a more unpleasant situation during Chinese New Year next month.

He said the Penang Water Supply Corporation (PBAPP) had no choice but to shut down the plant to carry out two urgent repairs.

“The two large control valves in the plant are leaking. These valves must be replaced.

“If these valves are not replaced soon, they may fail or cause a pipeline burst during the Chinese New Year, or Hari Raya celebrations, or any time in the middle of the night,” he told The Star.

It is estimated that 590,000 consumers would be impacted by the four-day water supply disruption starting Wednesday.

More than 100 PBAPP personnel will be working round-the-clock over 96 hours to ensure everything runs on schedule during the water cut period.

The corporation plans to complete the works at the water treatment plant within the first 24 hours.

For the next 72 hours, the focus will be on “water supply services recovery” and to re-start and pump treated water through thousands of kilometres of pipelines to the affected consumers.

Out of the nine water treatment plants in Penang, Chow said the Sungai Dua plant is the most important because it produces 80% of the treated water for the state daily.

“As the Chief Minister of Penang, I admit that water supply here is one of the issues that sometimes keep me up at night, especially when thinking about the future.

“We are aiming to steer the state towards the holistic goal of becoming ‘a family-focused green and smart state that inspires the nation’ by 2030.

“We need sufficient water supply to fulfil this goal. We have a plan to reduce Penang’s water risks and address future water demand and PBAPP is implementing its Water Contingency Plan 2030,” he said.

Under the WCP 2030, the corporation will implement eight key water supply projects starting last year till 2028 to ensure water supply sufficiency in Penang until 2030. The total cost is projected to be RM1.184bil.

As for current progress of the Perak-Penang Water Supply Plan, Chow said a committee would be formed soon to monitor the overall progress of the work from the preliminary stage to the end of this project.

For the water shutdown starting this Wednesday till Sunday, PBAPP said it had sent out notices and reminders to consumers about the scheduled disruption in advance and also advised them the need to stock up water at home.

Most MPs and assemblymen in the state have also distributed water tanks at strategic spots, especially in high-rise buildings, and held discussions with residents to explain the situation and remind them to store enough water.

A check revealed that most hawkers and food outlet operators here will be resorting to disposable cutlery during the water cut.

A total of 60 static water tanks will be placed at targeted areas while the PBAPP will deploy a fleet of 99 tankers to supply water – according to fixed schedules – to affected folk.

The corporation has explained that this week’s water shutdown will be quite similar to the water cut in Selangor in October last year when Air Selangor shut down the Sungai Langat treatment plant for upgrading works.

Millions of people in 162 areas were affected by a four-day water supply interruption then.

As for the Penang folk, they would have to put up with the hot weather during the shutdown with temperature expected to be between 26°C and 34°C.

For urgent assistance, the public can call PBAPP’s 24-hour call centre at 04-255 8255.

By ALEX TENG


Related:

Penang water woes: Most factories to close, business will ...

Balancing between data’s potential and its security

IN an era where data is king, the launch of Malaysia’s Central Database Hub (Padu) marks a significant milestone.

For the first time, the government will be collecting personal data on an unprecedented scale – everything from IC numbers and addresses to bank details and property ownership – into a single repository.

While revolutionary in its potential to streamline government services and target subsidies effectively, this initiative raises profound concerns about the security and privacy of our data.

Currently, we have the Personal Data Protection Act on the books. However, under Section 3(1) of the Act, this law does not apply to the government. 

Personal Data Protection Act 2010

Does this mean the extensive data collected through Padu is not afforded the same protections as it would if it was collected by private entities?

Previous data misuse and breaches in government systems only exacerbate our fear.

Cybersecurity firm Surfshark has listed Malaysia as the eighth most breached country globally in Q3 2023, with 494,699 leaked accounts. This represents a 144% increase in breach rate compared to Q2 2023.

According to its midyear threat landscape report, leaks from the government sector constituted 22% of total security breaches from January to June 2023.

The fundamental questions cannot be avoided: Can we trust the government with so much of our personal information? What assurances are there that it will be protected against misuse and theft?

The answers, according to most analysts and experts, lie in reforming the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) to encompass government data handling.

Amending the PDPA to include the government and all its agencies would be a significant step toward securing public confidence.

It would ensure the same rigorous data protection standards applied to private entities are also binding upon the government.

Such an amendment would not just be a legal formality; it would be the government’s commitment to the people, a reassurance that our personal information is valued and protected with the highest standards of security and privacy.

It would demonstrate a recognition of the principle that with great power comes great responsibility, especially when that power involves access to the extensive details of one’s financial and personal life.

While Padu presents an opportunity for public administration in Malaysia to take a huge leap forward, it also poses a significant risk to personal privacy if not appropriately managed.

The need to amend the PDPA to apply to data collected by the government is not just a regulatory necessity but a critical step in building trust between the citizens and the state.

Only with such legislative safeguards can the government assure its people that their data, their most personal and sensitive information, is in safe hands.

.  Source link

Related posts:

PADU to help govt identify eligible targeted subsidy

Firms’ legal battle against US ‘forced labor’ slur necessary

 

Photo: Vitaly Podvitsk


The legal battle between Chinese laser printer manufacturer Ninestar and the US government has received wide attention, and the unfolding of the thorny legal dispute surrounding the case has further revealed how brazen Washington is in implementing trade bullying by placing the label of so-called forced labor on China. 

After Ninestar and its seven subsidiaries were put on a list under the US' so-called Uygur Forced Labor Protection Act (UFLPA), the company sued the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force, a multi-agency body led by the US Department of Homeland Security, in the US Court of International Trade, accusing it of acting in an "arbitrary and capricious manner in violation of US law" and arguing that the listing decision was taken "without offering any explanation or justification."

Now the legal fight is heating up, in part over who shares the burden of proof and the reliability of the evidence, the South China Morning Post reported on Thursday.

In a December filing, Ninestar claimed that the US government's decision lacked evidence and "applied a low standard of proof," and its basis was "retroactive." The company also asked the court to suspend the implementation of the government's action.

While the ultimate outcome of the case is unclear, it has already played a role in exposing the US roughness and lack of supporting evidence, letting the world know how brazen Washington could be in using lies to suppress Xinjiang industries and Chinese manufacturing.

It is no secret that the so-called forced labor and genocide claims in Xinjiang are utter lies made up by radical politicians, media and think tank scholars in the US and the West.

In recent years, Xinjiang has made great achievements in manufacturing development. In particular, large-scale mechanized production has become increasingly popular in most areas in the region, with the mechanization rate of Xinjiang's cotton sector at about 90 percent.

So how is "forced labor" possible? In the context of China-US tensions, playing the "Xinjiang card" is actually nothing but another tool the US has used to contain China's development. It wants to deprive local people of employment, creating de facto "forced unemployment" and thus disrupting the steady growth of Chinese manufacturing.

This is the fundamental reason why the UFLPA, turning a blind eye to the basic principle of the modern rule of law - the presumption of innocence - exercises the controversial presumption clause that requires enforcement authorities to presume that all goods "mined, produced, or manufactured" in whole or in part in Xinjiang are made with "forced labor" while forcing companies to incriminate themselves.

Because of this lie, products made in Xinjiang are collectively targeted and discriminated against by Western supply chains. If this is not a violation of the international trade order, then what is?

Even as Washington is obsessed about catering to its domestic political environment and strategic needs to suppress Chinese manufacturing, it is still important for Ninestar to defend its interests by resorting to legal action. Whatever the outcome of the case, Chinese companies need to have their voices heard.

Even if litigation is costly and doesn't guarantee winning the case, we still believe that more Chinese companies should seek clarity and challenge trade rules that carry political intentions through legal means.

Chinese companies should not accept this. We also hope that relevant industry associations provide more legal assistance and support to companies that were blacklisted by such unfair trade measures

RELATED ARTICLES