THE Energy, Science, Technology, Environment and Climate Change Ministry is as expansive as it is a mouthful. Minister Yeo Bee Yin speaks to Ahmad Fairuz Othman,
Syed Umar Ariff and Dawn Chan about resolving enforcement issues, ironing out
bad deals and the war against plastic waste.
Question: It appears that your ministry has a wide portfolio, including climate change.
Answer: It’s a broad ministry (in terms of its purview). Even as an energy minister, it does not mean that you take care of all sides of the energy (portfolio). I mainly take care of the electricity side. On science and technology, it is only part of it, and the others are under (other parties).
The same goes for the environment. We mainly deal with brown issues and not the green issues. The latter is under conservation, which in turn is under (the portfolio of) natural resources. Brown issues look into pollution control and climate change. So it is actually a broad ministry, but our job requires us to work with other ministries. All these sectors are interlinked.
Q: Your ministry kicked off the year with a bang with the Sungai Kim Kim toxic waste crisis, which led to the formulation of a new environmental law. What is your take on the human factors that lead to such issues?
A: When a law is not enforced, it is as good as being lawless. So even as we draft a new environmental act, we also look into what can be done to enforce the current act, which is the Environmental Quality Act 1974.
It was drafted, written and passed in 1974, and some aspects of it are quite outdated and do not meet current requirements. Many (aspects) were not even enforced. Which is why we have restructured the DoE (Department of Environment) and reorganised procedures to make it a better agency in enforcing the current act and later the new act.
On Sungai Kim Kim, the first issue was a lack of enforcement and monitoring of scheduled waste. The second is about people not being afraid of enforcement. They have been dumping (chemical waste) all this while.
You realise that they have been dumping different things before and this time it was toxic. So that’s why we are intensifying enforcement not only in Johor, but also in all industrial areas nationwide.
It is not just about people and procedures. We are looking at the tools used by DoE. We spent a lot of money paying concessionaires to do environmental monitoring, but what did we get from it? Not much. And it can’t lead to action.
Q: What actually happens between monitoring and taking action (enforcement)?
A: There was a disconnect. You spend a lot of money on monitoring, but it resulted in annual environmental monitoring reports. Year in, year out, you produce the report. But it is not useful for people doing enforcement work on the ground.
People on the ground still had to go about (their work) based on complaints. The system only monitors, it does so without action. This is because the data collected was not useful for the teams on the ground.
So there is a distorted allocation of resources in DoE. For example, allocation for the enforcement machinery was much less than for the monitoring system. This monitoring system is not helping with enforcement. What is the point ?
We must have a practical monitoring system and channel more allocation into (enforcement) machinery such as vehicles. We want to strategically put allocations into the right tools, people and processes to increase enforcement by DoE.
However, it (the negotiation) is not easy because of the concession agreement. It was a 15-year concession signed in 2017.
Q: How much does the government pay the concessionaire for environmental monitoring?
A: RM60 million annually. It is almost a third of DoE’s expenditure. Yes, there are some useful aspects to it, the tools (such as sensors and data centres) used right now are sophisticated, but too few. So the specification, when it comes to expectations, is so far off from what is needed on the ground. Think about it. You are an enforcement agency, but most of your money is spent on a monitoring system, which you can’t use (to implement action).
And then you don’t have the money to buy the enforcement machinery that is needed. We are renegotiating, not so much to change the deal. If we have room, the system can actually help with enforcement.
Q: Is this type of concession prevalent?
A: There were concessions set through open tenders. But the problem arises when the specification was wrong.
When it was specified what you would get out of the environment quality monitoring system, you were actually listening to other people and not really thinking about what you really needed or the action (outcome) that you wanted.
Another example is the direct tenders. Under our ministry, IPPs (independent power producers) were rampant. I inherited a ministry which signed a lot of award letters, including to a company with no staff members to build a power plant.
You have direct tenders on certain lands for a land swap deal. Some of it I cannot disclose yet. We are still negotiating and (looking into) legal implications.
Such bad deals took place across the energy, science, technology and environment (portfolios). These have to be dealt with and renegotiated so that, in the long term, deals can actually benefit the people.
Q: Do we still need IPPs?
A: We still need power producers. The idea now is what can be (done to make it) a more transparent market structure. Moving forward, we should have a more transparent structure for power producing plants, whether they are renewable energy or conventional ones. They can compete on equal ground. This has to be done without a need for a person to know who is who or needing to lobby for this or that. No. There is no need.
We are coming up with the Malaysia Electricity Supply Industry reform plan, which we worked on since the end of last year. It contains what is expected of the market structure and ways to do it.
It is a long-term plan that will be announced provided the cabinet approves it when I table it for the first time. If they don’t, then it will have to come back, have changes made and (be tabled for a) second time.
There’s going to be inevitable change for our energy and electricity sector in the near future.
Q: Many people think that because the government is on an austerity drive, it led to the cancellation of the four IPP projects last year.
A: Cancelling IPPs will not save government allocations. It saves (the cost borne by) the electricity users. For example, IPP is a contract we give to power producers. They will then use this contract — because you are going to buy a certain amount of electricity from them — to do their financing. They build a plant and Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) will be forced to buy from them.
Whether you need to use it (the electricity) or not, you need to pay for capacity. Let’s say there is a 700-megawatt power plant. You have to continue to pay for 700 megawatts, although your reserve margin is already 35 per cent or 40 per cent.
It’s not so much about an austerity drive, as it does not save the government money. But it can help in the long term by saving electricity users’ money amounting to RM1.2 billion. Can you believe it ? Just by optimising the supply of electricity.
Q: RM1.2 billion is a lot of savings for consumers.
A: Everyone will need to pay to buy that excess energy that you don’t need. It’s (RM1.2 billion) the system cost. That means you need to pay throughout the year.
Q: Based on the annexes that Malaysia negotiated for the Basel Convention (Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal), signatory countries have until Jan 1, 2021, to bring local laws in line with the amendment. It seems we are starting our efforts much earlier.
A: When it is enforced in 2021, it will become a responsibility of exporting countries as well. You will have more layers of control on the import and export of plastic. I do hope developed countries will start this exercise earlier than 2021.
Now, we are using satellite data to detect the dumping of plastic waste. Our space agencies are looking into it. They’ve just developed a model and algorithm to identify open-air dumping sites. It was presented two weeks ago and has an 85 per cent accuracy rate.
Q: What will happen to plastic scraps that have passed through the ports?
A: If they send it elsewhere, there will be other illegal factories coming up and most will burn the plastic for a simple reason that non-recyclable plastic cannot be disposed of. The only way is to burn it, and when they burn it, there is a pungent smell and surrounding residents will know. We monitor through satellites and the number is reducing.
While the problem still exists, it is no longer as serious as at the early stage. This would be solved at the end of this year.
It’s easier to send back containers (of plastic waste) that we halted at the ports, but it’s difficult to send it back if the waste has gone out (from the port).
We use the Environmental Quality Act to charge them if they don’t send it back. So they are forced to send it back. If not, we will have to notify the export country under the Basel Convention because it’s illegal to traffic (such waste).
It is more expensive to open landfills for disposal over there (developed countries) than to export it halfway across the globe to Malaysia.
Q: We want to talk about a lesser known part of your portfolio, which is climate change.
A: Climate change is (a) very new (field). The ministry has a lot of government-linked companies and agencies. One is called Malaysian Green Technology Corporation, which has been doing a lot of green tech, low-carbon footprint and city framework things. We want to repurpose this to become a climate change centre.
Under that structure, there will be a National Climate Change Centre, which will have two functions. First is on mitigation and secondly, on adaptation. Overall, we would also look into whether there is a need for a Climate Change Act.
In terms of adaptation, very few people are aware there is a risk that comes with climate change, and in Malaysia, it comes with a couple of issues and scenarios.
(Firstly, it concerns the possibility of) the globe warming by up to 2°C. Let’s say the temperature increases by the year 2030, what will happen to our shoreline, our food chain and marine ecosystem?
This year, we will conduct analytics on the shoreline. Next year, we will look into food security.
If we get a climate-resilient crop or a better design for infrastructure, which can be patented, then we can sell it to the world.
That is why in a crisis, there is always an opportunity. But we must first know the risk and have policies to incentivise technology start-ups or companies that work on these issues.
Q: A lot of readers want to know you as a person. You were a chemical engineer and you’re from Batu Anam, Segamat.
A: There is a Chinese proverb that goes ‘people are made because of time’. Let’s say it is the 1980s. You are an engineer by profession. You come back, you want to make a change, you join the opposition party. Eventually, you will continue as the opposition or maybe you will give up in the end.
I remember in 2018, before the election, I asked myself this question. First, do I go back to Johor? Second, I asked ‘will you still do what you are going to do if you know you are going to lose?’ That was the question I asked. If a change is not going to come or if things are not going to turn out good, will you still choose to do that? Then that is your conviction. I think it is because so many people have chosen to do that regardless of the consequences or the end, that this struggle has been made possible.
Q: People often mistake you for Hannah Yeoh and vice versa. When you got married, people were congratulating Hannah Yeoh instead.
A: Some people also call me Hannah! I recall a very funny incident. Hannah and I were having lunch with my husband. I was sitting opposite my husband and Hannah was beside him at a mamak shop. As we were eating, someone came and spoke to Hannah, telling her that she was doing a good job. After they finished with the conversation, the person said ‘have a happy married life’ to Hannah in front of me and my husband. I am often mistaken as Hannah as well. Sometimes, people will say ‘I know you. You are Hannah Yeoh’.
Sometimes people want to talk to Hannah about climate change, this and that. Sometimes in Facebook posts, people would comment on my page ‘good job, Hannah’.
Q: You were Damansara Utama assemblyman and single at the time. Then you began dating, was made a minister and got married. All this within a year. Things moved fast for you. How do you juggle your time now?
A: I think dating was more difficult than being married. You are a public figure and things get tough. So I think the difference between now and then, during dating and work, it gets a bit intense. You are more stressed.
After marriage, I was more settled. Being married didn’t make a huge difference in my life. It made things more settled and less dramatic. And it is good for work. You get to focus.
In terms of time management, it is important that you prioritise things. For example, initially, I have one family, and now I have two. And I have so much work, so many agencies under me, 30 of it, and party (political) work as well. Prioritising tasks and time management is quite important.
I am very fortunate to have a very good team. People on my team are not only diligent, but intelligent as well and are of integrity. So I trust my team. I trust my constituency manager. Getting the right person helped me a lot in juggling my time.
Q: Are you planning to start
a family soon?
A: We have started, but the baby part is difficult. That is up to God. It is not something you can have immediately. Of course, we both love children. But you know, it doesn’t come when you wish or that you can buy one off the shelf.