Teluk Nipah Resort - A Case Study (Synopsis)

[tedmc]

The following is the synopsis of a case study of a local authority dealing with illegal stall operators along the beach (read squatters) and associated environmental problems in a village in Pangkor, a tropical island in Malaysia, written by a friend. The article is meant for the reader to come up with advice and recommendations to the local authority to solve the problem. Could you please proofread it?

Thanks.


Teluk Nipah, a tranquil seaside village with the most attractive beaches in the island of Pangkor, off the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia, was set to be a popular tourist destination with its acquiring the status of a duty-free island, in time for Visit Malaysia Year 2020. The local council had pledged to improve and transform the area into an attractive, international tourist resort, but is facing what appears to be insurmountable obstacles to their efforts in clearing and putting a stop to illegal activities of food and souvenir stalls along the beachfront by the local residents, taking advantage of the modest domestic tourist industry.


The State Coastal Protection Department was engaged by the Manjung District Council to carry out a study of the erosion problem on the stretch of beach in Teluk Nipah and has found that the shore is prone to the severe and damaging impact of sea waves and storms. They have caused extensive erosion on the shore, the shoreline to recede and pose a hazard to buildings and occupants in the immediate vicinity. There was also the problem of pollution due to uncontrolled discharge of wastes from the illegal buildings. The alarm was raised to have the illegal business activities on the beachfront relocated and measures taken to preserve the beach, in view of the hazards from the storms and waves. The Council is required to implement the measures to preserve the beach and at the same time, ensure the well-being of residents.


The relocation exercise of the illegal business operators to facilities prepared for them at a nearby beach was carried out but failed. Due to poor business, the operators returned to the original site to carry on their business activities as usual, within two months, so it was back to square one. Eviction orders were issued to the operators to vacate the illegal premises but they refused to budge. An ultimatum and threat of fine to them were given but to no avail. The action of the Council had incurred the wrath of the residents who went on to stage protests and demonstrations. The local Council in the meantime was given a one-month deadline by the State Government to have the issue resolved once and for all. Meetings of the stakeholders were held but ended in deadlock.


The local Council is now in a quandary on how to resolve the multi-faceted problem. Objective requirements from the Technical Authority call for the Coastal Buffer Zone requirement to be observed, the illegal structures to be cleared and the occupants vacated for the long-term preservation of the beach. The illegal business operators are adamant on staying put, purportedly for the sake of their livelihood and economic well-being. The local Council, while being responsible for enforcing the law to relocate the squatters along the beachfront for the sake of the environment, progress and safety, has to be prudent not to anger the residents. Compliance with the law in this case is expected to be tempered with compassion. The case study calls for a balance to be struck between social, economic and environmental considerations.

 

[teechar]

but is facing what appear to be insurmountable obstacles to their efforts [STRIKE]in clearing and putting a stop to[/STRIKE] to remove the illegal [STRIKE]activities of[/STRIKE] food and souvenir stalls along the beachfront, [STRIKE]by the local residents, taking[/STRIKE] whose owners take advantage of the modest domestic tourist industry.

They have caused [STRIKE]extensive erosion on the shore,[/STRIKE] the shoreline to recede, due to extensive erosion, and pose a hazard to buildings and occupants in the immediate vicinity.

The relocation [STRIKE]exercise[/STRIKE] of the illegal [STRIKE]business operators[/STRIKE] stalls to facilities prepared for them at a nearby beach was carried out but failed. Due to poor business, the operators returned to the original site to carry on their business activities as usual within two months, so it was back to square one. Eviction orders were issued to the operators, [STRIKE]to vacate the illegal premises[/STRIKE] but they refused to budge. An ultimatum and a threat [STRIKE]of[/STRIKE] to fine [STRIKE]to[/STRIKE] them were given but to no avail. The [STRIKE]action of the Council[/STRIKE] stalemate had incurred the wrath of the residents who went on to stage protests and demonstrations. The local Council in the meantime was given a one-month deadline by the State Government to have the issue resolved once and for all. Meetings [STRIKE]of[/STRIKE] involving the stakeholders were held but ended in deadlock.

The local Council is now in a quandary on how to resolve [STRIKE]the multi-faceted[/STRIKE] this complicated problem. Objective requirements from the Technical Authority call for the Coastal Buffer Zone [STRIKE]requirement[/STRIKE] area to be protected, [STRIKE]observed,[/STRIKE] the illegal structures to be cleared and [STRIKE]the occupants vacated[/STRIKE] removed for the long-term preservation of the beach. The illegal business operators are adamant on staying put, purportedly for the sake of their livelihood and economic survival. [STRIKE]well-being.[/STRIKE]

.

 

[tedmc]

but is facing what appear to be insurmountable obstacles to their efforts in clearing and putting a stop to to remove the illegal activities of food and souvenir stalls along the beachfront, by the local residents, taking whose owners take advantage of the modest domestic tourist industry.

They have caused extensive erosion on the shore, the shoreline to recede, due to extensive erosion, and pose a hazard to buildings and occupants in the immediate vicinity.

The relocation exercise of the illegal business operators stalls to facilities prepared for them at a nearby beach was carried out but failed. Due to poor business, the operators returned to the original site to carry on their business activities as usual within two months, so it was back to square one. Eviction orders were issued to the operators, to vacate the illegal premises but they refused to budge. An ultimatum and a threat of to fine to them were given but to no avail. The action of the Council stalemate
It is not the stalemate that make the residents angry but local authority using their power to evict the operators.


had incurred the wrath of the residents who went on to stage protests and demonstrations. The local Council in the meantime was given a one-month deadline by the State Government to have the issue resolved once and for all. Meetings of involving the stakeholders were held but ended in deadlock.

The local Council is now in a quandary on how to resolve the multi-faceted this complicated problem. Objective requirements from the Technical Authority call for the Coastal Buffer Zone requirement area to be protected,

The buffer zone is a technical requirement to be complied with (observed) for coastal protection.

observed, the illegal structures to be cleared and the occupants vacated removed for the long-term preservation of the beach. The illegal business operators are adamant on staying put, purportedly for the sake of their livelihood and economic survival. well-being.

See my comments in blue.

 

[teechar]

It is not the stalemate that make the residents angry but local authority using their power to evict the operators.

Are you talking about all the residents (residents in general) or the stall owners who are impacted by the council's action?

The buffer zone is a technical requirement to be complied with (observed) for coastal protection.

Perhaps:
The Technical Authority mandates that the Buffer Zone requirement be complied with.

 

[tedmc]

Are you talking about all the residents (residents in general) or the stall owners who are impacted by the council's action?

It is about the stall owners.

 

[teechar]

The action of the Council had incurred the wrath of the [STRIKE]residents[/STRIKE] stall owners who went on to stage protests and demonstrations.

.