I refer to Malaysiakini report Raub gold mine is safe, says Yen Yen.

Dr Ng Yen Yen, the Raub MP, claimed that the gold mining by RAGM in Raub is safe and people ‘refuse to listen to scientific facts’. I assume that that Yen Yen has the scientific spirit as she bases her reasoning on ‘scientific facts’. After reading through her statement, I hold reservations about the scientific spirit.

Since Yen Yen has brought in a specialist (not sure of which type of specialisation), then can we have a look at what are the findings of the report, if any? We also would like to know who paid for the consultancy or advisory services of this specialist. The specialist needs to demonstrate his/ her independence and freedom from undue pressure in order to exercise professional judgment. Otherwise, the ‘scientific’ conclusions would be cast in doubt.
We would not believe what a person claims just because he/she says ‘This is scientific fact’. We would like to know the theory or hypothesis embedded in the claim, what and how the evidence is collected and to critically evaluate whether the evidence supports the claim.

Yen Yen has declared the Raub gold-mining to be safe. However, there are counter-evidences from the residents of Kampong Bukit of physical and psychological discomfort when the mine is operational. And one of them has even died. To be truly scientific, all evidence should be gathered to establish the causal relationship between cyanide mining and ill health.

Merely citing what the Raub Hospital says of having no cases of cyanide poisoning is insufficient to dispel the residents’ deep anxiety. Data from the private clinic also needs to be included. The methodological issue is involved here to demonstrate objectivity.

As an elected MP, what Yen Yen should do is to ask RAGM to demonstrate that the highest safety standards of handling cyanide are being objectively achieved and to be accountable for any breaches of internationally accepted standards. However, she appears to be more interested in defending the interests of RAGM rather than those of the potential victims.

This is strange for an elected MP. Also, it is not her duty to show Bukit Koman residents other mining sites. Even if other mines are safe, this does not disprove breaches of safety standards by RAGM, if any. It is RAGM’s duty to prove safety compliance. Yen Yen should not waste her time arguing with the ‘unreasonable’ and ‘unyielding’ residents.

She once went to the Banjong mining site and said ‘There are some fish in the area. If there are traces of cyanide, the fish will die first. But the fish are still there.’ Now, the real situation is that one of the residents, not the fish, had died (allegedly of cyanide poisoning) and many more suffered ill health effects.

Is she able to rule out the possibility that cyanide as a possible contributory factor? She has yet to provide a convincing argument with credible evidence. Merely pointing at one or two fish does not prove the severity or the source or the pattern of the problem.

Yen Yen’s approach to science is reductionist whereby all the health, environmental and ethical issues are reduced to technical issues. This is misguided as she has overemphasised the role of specialists and experts in matters relating to public risks. Experts do not make better judgments on the probability of catastrophe as proven historically by the Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Bhopal disasters.

Human factors are the prime cause of accidents. There is no such thing as absolute safety. All control systems deteriorate over time. Without assurance that there are multiple lines of defence in case of human errors, Yen Yen is treading on shaky ground of being held responsible should there be any environmental catastrophe that could occur in future.

So far no independent inspectors are allowed to assess the safety conditions in the mine. Whatever claims on ‘scientific facts’ are at best hearsay, and hence unscientific. Science should not be turned into technological oppression whereby the potential victims are denied the democratic right to reject risks that are unfairly imposed upon them without free and informed consent.

The residents of Bukit Koman should be given the power to decide whether the risks of cyanide poisoning are acceptable. This is not a question of scientific facts, but a question of living in dignity and without fear. This is also a question of ethical business.

Blood gold is not worth the profits. Members of Parliament should listen to the cry of pain of the residents. Using flimsy evidence and faulty reasoning do not dispel the anxiety and doubts of the resident who are living through a period of irrationality of domination by science and technology.

The fragile ecosystem just would not be able to withstand the onslaught of cyanide poisoning. The blind trust on science is just another form of toxic superstition.