Media Statement by Chow Kon Yeow, Penang State Executive Councillor for Local Government and Traffic Management at the conclusion of the Local Government Consultative Forum on Monday, 11 April 2011 at the Kompleks Masyarakat Penyayang, Penang.
1. Swiftlet farm operators and MCA leaders have raised three issues at a demonstration staged at Komtar walk, on Friday 8 April 2011.
2. Issue No.1 –Accused the Penang State Government for trying to kill off this lucrative industry by removing swiftlet premises from the World Heritage Site of Geoege Town!
3. Issue No.2 –“Heritage” in whatever forms are still “dead things”, only people have lives!
4. Issue No.3 –Mulu National Park and George Town are both heritage sites, why swiftlet activity are allowed in Mulu and not George Town!
5. The Penang State Government is not trying to kill off swiftlet farming. We want swiftlet farm investors to continue this lucrative business at appropriate zones approved for such activities.
6. Swiftlet farm investors would see their investments secured and sustainable over a long term if it is carried out at approved zones.
7. Swiftlet farm investors should not risk their investment by putting up swiftlet farms in unapproved zones as they would have to face enforcement action for failing to get the required planning and building approval from the local councils.
8. Swiftlet farm investors should revise their investment strategy in line with the Federal Government’s decision to stop swiftlet farming in the World Heritage Sites of Melaka and George Town and also the adoption of the National Guideline for Swiftlet Farming.
9. By lobbying intensively against the decision to stop swiftlet farming in George Town World Heritage Site, swiftlet farm investors are expecting the wider interests of the State and people to be sacrificed so that their narrow interests can be protected.
10. By asserting that “heritage in whatever forms are still lifeless dead things”, exposed their lack of understanding and appreciation of George Town World Heritage Site.
11. They are just equating heritage with artefacts, monuments or even antique pieces meant for decoration purposes at home.
12. George Town World Heritage Site is not about lifeless artefacts, monuments or antique pieces. George Town was inscribed as World Heritage Site because of the outstanding universal values of a living heritage. “Melaka and George Town are living testimony to the multi-cultural heritage and tradition of Asia, where the greatest religions, and cultures met. The coexistence of distinct faiths - both tangible and intangible - in particular the different religious buildings, is a testament to the religious pluralism of Asia.”
13. Swiftlet farm investors should realize that if George Town is taken over by birdhouse, this city would be turned not only into a bird city but a ghost city, which threaten not only the World Heritage Site status but also George Town as the capital city of the State of Penang. In short the future of George Town is at stake!
14. Who would allowed the future of George Town to be compromised?
15. The other assertion is made because of sheer ignorance. Mulu National Park is a natural heritage while George Town is a living heritage. Swiftlet belongs to the natural realm. Just because swiftlet activities are found in Mulu National Park, a natural heritage site, does not mean it should be allowed in the living heritage site of George Town.
檳州地方政府及交通委員會主席曹觀友于11-4-2011地方政府論壇上的總結
1. 養燕業者及馬華領袖于上週五（8-4-2011），在光大大道展開的示威行動中提及3項要點。
2. 第一：檳州政府企圖將喬治市的養燕業者趕盡殺絕！
3. 第二：古蹟怎樣講都是死物，人類才是有生命的！
4. 第三：姆魯國家公園和喬治市同樣是世界遺產，為何姆魯允許引燕活動而喬治市卻不能！
5. 檳州政府並非要將燕業者趕盡殺絕，而是要養燕業者在允許養燕活動的地區，繼續他們這利潤豐厚的行業。
6. 養燕業者在適當及被允許的地區進行養燕活動，將可以看到這項投資的長遠保障及穩定。
7. 養燕業者不應冒險在禁止養燕的地區進行養燕活動，因為業者在不獲得地方政府批准規劃及建築圖測的情況下，將會受到執法行動的對付。
8. 養燕業者應更改他們的投資策略，遵循中央政府禁止在馬六甲及喬治市世界文化古蹟遺產區內養燕的決定，以及采納全國養燕指南。
9. 養燕業者強烈反對喬治市禁止養燕的決定，只為了希望保住他們的私益，而犧牲州政府及廣大群眾的利益。
10. “古蹟怎樣講都是死物”的言論，顯示他們不了解及不珍惜喬治市世界文化遺產。
11. 他們只是一昧的將古蹟，與古物、甚至作為家居裝飾的古懂劃上等號。
12. 喬治市並不是古物或古懂的死物，其文化古蹟遺產地位是來自喬治市，無形及有形的獨特傳統多元文化色彩，尤其是宗教和文化並存的特色，不同的宗教建築，更突顯出這是一個多元宗教的地區。
13. 養燕業者應了解，一旦喬治市被燕屋取代，整座城市將不只是變成燕城，而是鬼城。這不但威脅世界文化遺產地位，同時也威脅喬治市作為檳州主要城市的地位。簡單來說，這影響喬治市的未來利益！
14. 誰會為了喬治市的未來而輕易妥協？
15. 至于另一個言論，則暴露了他們的無知。姆魯國家公園是自然生態遺產，而喬治市則是文化古蹟遺產。燕子是屬于自然生態的。姆魯國家公園有引燕活動，正因那是自然生態遺產；這不代表喬治市作為文化古蹟遺產，就應該允許養燕活動。
1. Swiftlet farm operators and MCA leaders have raised three issues at a demonstration staged at Komtar walk, on Friday 8 April 2011.
2. Issue No.1 –Accused the Penang State Government for trying to kill off this lucrative industry by removing swiftlet premises from the World Heritage Site of Geoege Town!
3. Issue No.2 –“Heritage” in whatever forms are still “dead things”, only people have lives!
4. Issue No.3 –Mulu National Park and George Town are both heritage sites, why swiftlet activity are allowed in Mulu and not George Town!
5. The Penang State Government is not trying to kill off swiftlet farming. We want swiftlet farm investors to continue this lucrative business at appropriate zones approved for such activities.
6. Swiftlet farm investors would see their investments secured and sustainable over a long term if it is carried out at approved zones.
7. Swiftlet farm investors should not risk their investment by putting up swiftlet farms in unapproved zones as they would have to face enforcement action for failing to get the required planning and building approval from the local councils.
8. Swiftlet farm investors should revise their investment strategy in line with the Federal Government’s decision to stop swiftlet farming in the World Heritage Sites of Melaka and George Town and also the adoption of the National Guideline for Swiftlet Farming.
9. By lobbying intensively against the decision to stop swiftlet farming in George Town World Heritage Site, swiftlet farm investors are expecting the wider interests of the State and people to be sacrificed so that their narrow interests can be protected.
10. By asserting that “heritage in whatever forms are still lifeless dead things”, exposed their lack of understanding and appreciation of George Town World Heritage Site.
11. They are just equating heritage with artefacts, monuments or even antique pieces meant for decoration purposes at home.
12. George Town World Heritage Site is not about lifeless artefacts, monuments or antique pieces. George Town was inscribed as World Heritage Site because of the outstanding universal values of a living heritage. “Melaka and George Town are living testimony to the multi-cultural heritage and tradition of Asia, where the greatest religions, and cultures met. The coexistence of distinct faiths - both tangible and intangible - in particular the different religious buildings, is a testament to the religious pluralism of Asia.”
13. Swiftlet farm investors should realize that if George Town is taken over by birdhouse, this city would be turned not only into a bird city but a ghost city, which threaten not only the World Heritage Site status but also George Town as the capital city of the State of Penang. In short the future of George Town is at stake!
14. Who would allowed the future of George Town to be compromised?
15. The other assertion is made because of sheer ignorance. Mulu National Park is a natural heritage while George Town is a living heritage. Swiftlet belongs to the natural realm. Just because swiftlet activities are found in Mulu National Park, a natural heritage site, does not mean it should be allowed in the living heritage site of George Town.
檳州地方政府及交通委員會主席曹觀友于11-4-2011地方政府論壇上的總結
1. 養燕業者及馬華領袖于上週五（8-4-2011），在光大大道展開的示威行動中提及3項要點。
2. 第一：檳州政府企圖將喬治市的養燕業者趕盡殺絕！
3. 第二：古蹟怎樣講都是死物，人類才是有生命的！
4. 第三：姆魯國家公園和喬治市同樣是世界遺產，為何姆魯允許引燕活動而喬治市卻不能！
5. 檳州政府並非要將燕業者趕盡殺絕，而是要養燕業者在允許養燕活動的地區，繼續他們這利潤豐厚的行業。
6. 養燕業者在適當及被允許的地區進行養燕活動，將可以看到這項投資的長遠保障及穩定。
7. 養燕業者不應冒險在禁止養燕的地區進行養燕活動，因為業者在不獲得地方政府批准規劃及建築圖測的情況下，將會受到執法行動的對付。
8. 養燕業者應更改他們的投資策略，遵循中央政府禁止在馬六甲及喬治市世界文化古蹟遺產區內養燕的決定，以及采納全國養燕指南。
9. 養燕業者強烈反對喬治市禁止養燕的決定，只為了希望保住他們的私益，而犧牲州政府及廣大群眾的利益。
10. “古蹟怎樣講都是死物”的言論，顯示他們不了解及不珍惜喬治市世界文化遺產。
11. 他們只是一昧的將古蹟，與古物、甚至作為家居裝飾的古懂劃上等號。
12. 喬治市並不是古物或古懂的死物，其文化古蹟遺產地位是來自喬治市，無形及有形的獨特傳統多元文化色彩，尤其是宗教和文化並存的特色，不同的宗教建築，更突顯出這是一個多元宗教的地區。
13. 養燕業者應了解，一旦喬治市被燕屋取代，整座城市將不只是變成燕城，而是鬼城。這不但威脅世界文化遺產地位，同時也威脅喬治市作為檳州主要城市的地位。簡單來說，這影響喬治市的未來利益！
14. 誰會為了喬治市的未來而輕易妥協？
15. 至于另一個言論，則暴露了他們的無知。姆魯國家公園是自然生態遺產，而喬治市則是文化古蹟遺產。燕子是屬于自然生態的。姆魯國家公園有引燕活動，正因那是自然生態遺產；這不代表喬治市作為文化古蹟遺產，就應該允許養燕活動。