by Gursharan Singh
The Mamut Copper Mine was leased to a company for thirty years to mine copper. The mining operations ceased in 1999 and later in 2003 it was returned back to the Sabah State Government. The reason for ceasing operations prior to the expiry of the concession period may be due to the exhaustion of copper or continued mining may not have been economically profitable. The company had then provided profits in millions that benefited the company owners.
I remember that environmentalists and other experts had regularly voiced their concerns in the past on the damage caused to the environment and its ill effects on the health of the people. I personally seen the pollution during my visit to KK and Mount Kinabalu in the mid eighties when I visited the State on audit of construction projects duties.
It is apparent that the State and Federal Government Authorities were aware of the damage being caused. However it is not possible to ascertain whether the relevant authorities monitored the operations to ensure that necessary measures were undertaken by the mining company to rectify the damage or taken any other remedial measures to prevent future environmental damage.
The possible millions in profits arising from the mining operations were enjoyed by the owners of the mine. In the process the ‘mining operations left behind a trail of pollutants that are unfriendly to nature and the health of people living at the foothills of Mount Kinabalu in Sabah’.
The company has long left Sabah to enjoy their millions. It has left the cost of remedial and cleanup measures to be borne by the taxpayers. The Federal Government has allocated RM13.0m but this is probably the tip of the iceberg as the total cost may ultimately exceed the benefits derived by the State in the form of taxes and employment opportunities.
It would be appropriate for the State/Federal authorities to study the whole case to ascertain the costs to cleanup the damage including indirect losses from missed opportunities such as from tourism and match them with the benefits. It would be interesting to know the overall position as it is my perception that the country will end up with substantially higher losses.
The Federal/State Attorney Generals should look into the terms of the lease and see whether the costs of clean up can be claimed back from the company. IF such a provision is not there it may be appropriate to include such a provision in future leases. Lessons can be learnt from the US where Government has imposed substantial fines on the responsible mining companies in addition to requiring these companies to bear the costs of cleanup operations.
This is another case where the profits are enjoyed by the selected few and the losses are to be borne by the many.