In a boardroom, perhaps in Sarawak, a board of trustees congratulate their director on his recent datukship. The profits from his company have turned a small village with negligible GDP per capita into a roaring success, with the total income generated over the last year reaching millions.

However, in the village, the people are dissatisfied. Before the company came, they had not earned much money, but in comparison to their neighbours they had considered themselves wealthy.

They had worked hard, trading jungle produce for non-tangible signs of wealth jars, beads, livestock. None of it showed in any government figures, and, for official purposes, the village was one of the poorest in the nation. They hadn't realised.

Form of exploitation

Now, however, they do realise. Their water is polluted. The shade and trees, so vital to their village, have gone. The jungle produce has disappeared, either smashed beneath developers' trucks or harvested by the board.

The young men and women have left, looking for a life away from the despair reigning in their homes. The older men have discovered the oblivion of alcohol, separating it from the carefully regulated ritual use of earlier times. Roaming loggers stumble into rooms, looking for young women, and sex becomes a commodity.

Next year, however, the loggers will be gone, leaving behind a red scar on the earth.

What had sustained generations, has now been destroyed, leaving a welt of broken lives and broken homes.

On the balance books it looks good, money generated. The thriving non-money economy that existed before has been demolished, but it was never included in the accounts. GDP and taxable income increases substantially. The nation has sold off its assets, and its culture.

This is development for the rich and privileged, enabled at great expense to the poor and comparatively powerless.

It is a form of exploitation that continues today.

Decision to boycott

Two weeks ago, the steering committee for the Kelau dam held a meeting, inviting along representatives from NGOs, from the communities affected and from varyious government agencies.

Towards the end, most of the NGOs decided that their voices were not being taken seriously, and they decided to boycott future briefing exercises, held under the guise of consultation meetings.

The boycotting NGOs were accused of being obstructive, of refusing to move forward. We, however, explicitly refute the definition of 'moving forward', of development, put forward by the committee.

Irreconcilable differences

The first major issue on which there was irreconcilable disagreement was on the issue of participation by affected communities. The chair laughingly, but misleadingly, translated the statements by the Batin (head) of the affected Orang Asli community for the benefit of the project's foreign funders. She pointed out how impatient the community was to move to their new homes, and that the Batin had said that it was causing them great distress.

The translation was incomplete.

The Batin's words do not indicate free, prior or informed consent. The Batin went on to explain that the village had been told in 1998 that they would be moving. (On a side note, this was before the EIA was even commissioned. The project proponents were very confident that the project would proceed.)

A site was proposed to the village, and rejected. This process was repeated until a 'suitable' site was agreed upon.

They were told that they had to move. No consultation.

This does not indicate either that the Orang Asli wish to move, as erroneously reported by the chair, nor does it indicate that they are pleased with their new site. The Batin said that they would rather not move, but seeing as they have to move, they would like to get it done quickly.

Benefits and costs

During the last meeting, it came out that there was a suitable site for the 'new' village near their current homes. They would retain their orchards and still be able to access much of their ancestral land, land that will not be flooded if the dam is built. This site had not even cropped up as a possible alternative. It was the preferred relocation site of a number of the villagers.

If a substantive consultation process had really taken place, how was this missed?

A costly EIA has already been commissioned for the dam proponents' preferred site. Although various departments are now, in theory, going to investigate the plausibility of the alternative relocation site, this EIA is going ahead. Either the federal government has allocated a large amount of taxpayers' funds to this project or, once again, it is very confident that the new site will prove unsatisfactory.

The people who are paying the largest price for the dam are being consulted and rewarded in the most derisory fashion possible. (Contrast this with dam-builder Gamuda's performance in the stock market. They reap the benefits while others pay the costs).

Dam unecessary

The second major issue was the necessity for the dam.

According to the chair, moving forward does not involve questioning whether RM3.9 billion of taxpayers' money (lent originally by a foreign funder) is being spent wisely. It does not involve checking figures to see that the dam is really necessary (a comparatively simple procedure, certainly cost-effective!).

Is it development to spend vast amounts of money to needlessly destroy vast swathes of forest reserve, uprooting hundreds of families and killing off one of our few remaining 'live' rivers?

Why do NGOs insist that the dam is unnecessary?

Firstly, the dam is being built to supply water to the Klang Valley, the same justification as given for the damming of the Sungai Selangor. But the predictions for increases in water demand are demonstrably false.

The figures show an increase in per capita water consumption. Yet even between 1997 and 1999, there was a significant decrease, from the outrageously high 559 litres per person per day, to the still extravagant 526 litres.

In 1999, water demand was projected as being at least 2,900 million litres per day, when the actual figure was 2,648. A significant difference enough for around half a million people.

Also, improvements in water management are not being taken into account. Last week, once again, we were told that the new waterworks authority, Puas, has RM500 million at its disposal to plug leaks, hoping that this will bring non-revenue water down to around 20 percent, from its current level around 40 percent.

These figures are consistent with those in the Malaysia Water Industry Report but not with those spouted by dam proponents, who maintain that leakage is only around 18 percent, rather than the published and more plausible figure of 36 percent.

But this would save around 600 million litres of daily consumption. This saving is not accounted for anywhere.

We are also regularly told that there will soon be compulsory rainwater harvesting installed on new residential units (although there has been no attempt, in law or through the application of incentives, to encourage the adoption of water saving devices.) If nothing else, the new laws will slow the demand for piped water. Again, this saving is not noted.

Not once has a satisfactory response been given to these issues. We are told, instead, that misinformed Cabinet ministers are giving inaccurate figures to the public plausible only until the latest Malaysian Water Industry report was published. (And of course which begs the question why ministers are misleading the public, and being misled themselves). We are told of secret surveys, classified under the Official Secrets Act. Why water demand projections are official secrets is not divulged.

This is not good enough.

Discard imaginary figures

It is time to move forward. Development is important and necessary. Improving the standard of living, increasing the health and well-being of the populace are noble goals.

Let's put them into practice, putting people at the forefront of development. The only way we are going to do this is if we stop concentrating on the desires, wishes and bottom line of already pampered officials and companies, and look at real resources and demand.

Let's discard the imaginary figures which will result in the depletion of our nation's real wealth and the expenditure of monetary resources on unnecessary white elephants.

We should consult the most neglected sectors of society on the type of development that would enrich rather than further impoverish them.

We should take into account the latest research and information on dam-building, as expressed in the prestigious World Commission on Dams report, which puts people and their needs before the needs of companies, politicians and bureaucrats.

And we should stop aping the destructive development practised in the West, using foreign funds to divert us from acquiring our own national identity and developmental agenda.

SONIA RANDHAWA is a volunteer with Save Our Sungai Selangor, a coalition of NGOs and concerned individuals [still] trying to halt the completion of the Selangor dam.