opinion Recently, the Department of Environment (DOE) was discovered being too lenient with polluting factories (The Sun, May 23). But while admitting that illegal factories posed a threat to the safety of drinking water in the Klang Valley, the DOE director-general said that the authorities should not act hastily against the offenders due to their 'economic contribution'.

What utter nonsense spewed to justify the DOE's inability to act!

It was reported that the authorities are looking for a suitable alternative site for the illegal operators. But they didn't say that the current polluting practices would be halted. Are the authorities going to find a new and more suitable site for the factories to continue polluting?

There seems to be nothing to prevent the operators from contaminating either Sungai Langat or the proposed new site. The factories may well continue breaking environmental legislation, but in a less politically sensitive area.

Justifying destruction

This destruction of the Sungai Langat, the pollution of a major source of drinking water and the destruction of its catchment area is leading yet more destruction.

The pollution of the Sungai Langat became most apparent during the water crisis of 1998. The river provides 16 per cent of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor's water supply. During the water crisis, 'Ops Langat' was launched to stop polluters from dumping waste into the river. Water treatment plants were closed as they were unable to handle the volume of pollution in the river.

This destruction is leading to yet more destruction - the construction of the 100m-tall Selangor dam. The dam will flood more than 600 hectares of forest and displace two Orang Asli villages.

Splash, the dam consortium, is wallowing in 'greenwash'(whitewashing from an environmental aspect). Its extensive media campaign is helping to convince the public - who, according to a New Straits Times survey, were overwhelmingly against large dams beforehand - that the Sungai Selangor dam is necessary.

It has taken full-page adverts and engaged in media savvy activities with environmentally and Orang Asli-friendly themes. It has a web site to counter 'negative' influences.

Behind this are the financial pages. Financial reports indicate that water is a burgeoning industry. The Splash shareholders stand to rake in substantial profits out of the dam project.

Which story is more likely to be the real justification for the dam?

The stories in the newspapers miss out on vital aspects of the dam construction. They did not cover land-stripping activities at the dam site which have contributed to recent mudslides and flash floods.

Three deaths?

The most appalling example of 'greenwash' followed the alleged deaths of three dam workers. These deaths were discovered by chance, by a local anti-dam activist. He asked for confirmation from a Splash panel doctor, who denied that the deaths had taken place, affirming that he would know if they had. Two subsequent investigations were done by reporters from Suara PRM and The Sun and they claimed that the deaths had taken place.

It appears that there has been no subsequent investigations into safety at the dam site.

Splash claims they have built silt traps and engaged an environmental consultant to protect the environment. Yet, the Sungai Selangor turns into into a teh tarik coloured brew when it rains. The nearby town of Kuala Kubu Baru (KKB) suffers from dry taps whenever it rains. Debris and silt are clogging the Gerachi intake point which supplies KKB. It is just near the dam site.

But it isn't just Splash that is engaged in 'greenwash', painting their destructive activities a more environmentally friendly hue. Even the DOE has hopped on the 'greenwash' bandwagon. It promised to have an officer on site to monitor the construction.

But according to locals, they have never seen the DOE person and there is no report on monitoring work after a year. The DOE may have the intention of protecting the environment but certainly it is not anything assuring so far.

Wishy-washy reaction

The recent Sungai Langat incident was criticised by both the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) and the Environment Protection Society of Malaysia (EPSM). The DOE was urged to be transparent, exposing and acting firmly against river polluters.

The environmental groups pointed out that failure to act will only breed more illegal activities. The government agencies were also urged to stop 'passing the buck' since taxpayers will end up paying more to clean up the rivers.

Just five days after WWF and EPSM made their public criticism, the Selangor DOE organised an environmental awareness camp under the 'Sungai Langat Conservation Programme'.

A Universiti Malaya lecturer and 42 students from six secondary schools supposedly played a major role in this event to help improve river quality and prevent pollution. Critics might say it was more to help improve the DOE's tarnished image.

The participating schools were supposed to adopt a river. The students will help improve the quality of the river by designing landscaped gardens and rest areas along the riverbanks. They are supposed to submit monthly reports to the DOE.

Toxic sewer

It seems a little extravagant of the DOE to expect monthly reports from schoolchildren. Neither the environmental consultant nor the DOE have produced a public report on the environmental impact monitoring of the massive Sungai Selangor dam. And they've had over a year to do so!

Teaching the young to love rivers is important. But in the desperate case of Sungai Langat, it trivialises the destruction of the river. What good is a toxic river with beautiful riverbanks? Surely it is more important for the DOE to halt the operations of the 100 illegal factories poisoning the Langat.

Let's hope the students don't make the same mistake that the DOE seems to be making. Let's hope they realise that beautiful banks won't turn a toxic sewer into a living river. More care and effort than this is needed.

SAM HUI is a web designer who has been actively volunteering in environmental protection work.