I refer to the Malaysiakini report Geo-technical team to outline SOP for Penang.

I feel compelled to raise several issues pertaining to the credibility and legitimacy of such an "independent" geo-technical team and standard operating procedures (SOP) as a relevant and crucial policy tool in achieving sustainable hillside development.

Firstly, is the team independent as claimed by the Penang CM? There are seven members in the panel, and only two are made known to the public. Who are the rest? I urge the Penang government to disclose to the public the name of all the members of this panel, with their respective CVs uploaded on the Internet.

The team leader, Prof Eric Goh, is an expert in natural resource management and has a close relationship with quarrying industries. Dr Gue See Sew is the managing director of one of the largest geo-technical consultancy firms in Malaysia.

Are there any representatives from Penang NGOs on the panel? Does the panel comprise of only engineering technocrats or are there economists, social scientists and NGO activist as well?

Secondly, what is the purpose of having a SOP? It must be said that having a SOP in place is by no means a progressive step towards better governance. Why do we lack a SOP in the first place? And is this the real reason behind uncontrolled and unsustainable hillside development?

Hillside development, and indeed environmental management issues at large, are distinctly different from operating a machine in a factory. SOP is very much the "bible" in a factory setting where the production line must be predictable, mechanistic and ultimately produce maximum output.

Managing a human-ecological system, such as that of hillside development, is more complex and uncertain. A SOP could be a good tool and a starting point towards developing other policy tools to govern hillside development, but by no means is it the guiding "bible".

This gives rise to the third point. I agreed with the CM when he said the nationwide ban on hillside deevelopment announced by the PM is an ill-thought knee jerk policy. But equally interesting is how in Penang, sustainable development is to be the guiding principle in development projects.

Sustainable development is much more than a catchy or fashionable word favoured by politicians. How that can be implemented will depend on if ‘we’ can live in harmony with nature. ‘We’ in the preceding sentence means all common citizens, regardless of the rich or poor.

If you have a millionaire breathing in fresh air in his idyllic hillside bungalow in a fenced forest (he paid good money to a geo-technical consultant to make sure the foundation of his house is strong enough) while the broad middle class (let alone the urban poor) cannot afford such luxury, that is NOT sustainable development.

Lastly, there is no shame in emulating Hong Kong, Singapore, Sri Lanka or even Madagascar, if there is something good to learn from them. But then, what is good for us? Who decides?

There must be more dialogue between the government, businesses and citizens in the spirit of deliberative democracy. Hong Kong does not solve its hillside development problem with a piece of SOP written by several technocrats, and neither would Penang. I am sure Prof Eric, Dr Gue and YAB Lim Guan Eng know this already.