Hydrographic survey needed to tackle Bintulu flooding, says Jepak rep
Iskandar says that the survey's findings would enable the government to implement targeted short- and long-term flood mitigation measures. – Photo by Roystein Emmor
KUCHING (May 22): A hydrographic survey is urgently needed to identify the root causes of flooding in Bintulu, particularly to assess the depth and sedimentation levels of local rivers that contributed to severe inundation earlier this year, said Jepak assemblyman Iskandar Turkee.
Speaking during his Motion of Appreciation on the Yang di-Pertua Negeri's address at the Sarawak Legislative Assembly (DUN) sitting today, Iskandar highlighted that the flooding on January 29 had paralysed activities in the division, especially in the town area.
'Besides natural causes, we believe there are other contributing factors to the disaster. One of them is the weakness in the drainage system in Bintulu, which prevented Sungai Sebiew from effectively discharging excess water, leading to a rapid surge in river levels,' he said.
To address the problem, Iskandar proposed several risk management strategies, starting with the hydrographic survey.
'To ensure smooth river flow from upstream to the estuaries of Sungai Sebiew and Sungai Kemena, a hydrographic survey must be conducted to determine the depth and sedimentation that may be causing floods,' he said.
He added that the survey's findings would enable the government to implement targeted short- and long-term flood mitigation measures.
'These measures may include river dredging, construction of flood retention ponds, upgrading of drainage systems, expanding monsoon drains in densely populated residential areas, and relocating residents affected by floods,' he said.
Iskandar also stressed the importance of enhancing communication and utility infrastructure resilience during disasters.
He suggested that power supplies for petrol stations and telecommunications towers be backed by standalone systems, and that substations be constructed on elevated terrain to prevent flood damage.
'This is to ensure uninterrupted fuel supply and functional communication systems during flood emergencies,' he said.
Furthermore, Iskandar advocated for broader adoption of satellite communication technology, such as Starlink, especially in rural areas, with solar power as a sustainable energy source.
Lastly, he called for the establishment of a Smart Data Utility Bank encompassing every division, district, town, village, and longhouse to maintain a comprehensive inventory of key infrastructure locations.
'This would help the government manage risks more systematically, swiftly, and effectively by enabling relevant departments or agencies to respond accordingly,' he said. Bintulu DUN flooding hydrographic survey Iskandar Turkee lead
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
12 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Trump's threat to cancel Musk's contracts exposes risks of US reliance on SpaceX
WASHINGTON, June 7 — SpaceX's rockets ferry US astronauts to the International Space Station. Its Starlink satellite constellation blankets the globe with broadband, and the company is embedded in some of the Pentagon's most sensitive projects, including tracking hypersonic missiles. So when President Donald Trump threatened on Thursday to cancel Elon Musk's federal contracts, space watchers snapped to attention. Musk, the world's richest person, shot back that he would mothball Dragon—the capsule Nasa relies on for crew flights—before retracting the threat a few hours later. For now, experts say mutual dependence should keep a full-blown rupture at bay, but the episode exposes just how disruptive any break could be. Founded in 2002, SpaceX leapfrogged legacy contractors to become the world's dominant launch provider. Driven by Musk's ambition to make humanity multiplanetary, it is now Nasa's sole means of sending astronauts to the ISS—a symbol of post-Cold War cooperation and a testbed for deeper space missions. Space monopoly? The company has completed 10 regular crew rotations to the orbiting lab and is contracted for four more, under a deal worth nearly US$5 billion. That's just part of a broader portfolio that includes US$4 billion from Nasa for developing Starship, the next-generation megarocket; nearly US$6 billion from the Space Force for launch services; and a reported US$1.8 billion for Starshield, a classified spy satellite network. Were Dragon grounded, the United States would again be forced to rely on Russian Soyuz rockets for ISS access — as it did between 2011 and 2020, following the Space Shuttle's retirement and before Crew Dragon entered service. 'Under the current geopolitical climate, that would not be optimal,' space analyst Laura Forczyk told AFP. Nasa had hoped Boeing's Starliner would provide redundancy, but persistent delays—and a failed crewed test last year—have kept it grounded. Even Northrop Grumman's cargo missions now rely on SpaceX's Falcon 9, the workhorse of its rocket fleet. The situation also casts a shadow over Nasa's Artemis programme. A lunar lander variant of Starship is slated for Artemis III and IV, the next US crewed Moon missions. If Starship were sidelined, rival Blue Origin could benefit—but the timeline would almost certainly slip, giving China, which aims to land humans by 2030, a chance to get there first, Forczyk warned. 'There are very few launch vehicles as capable as Falcon 9 — it isn't feasible to walk away as easily as President Trump might assume,' she said. Nasa meanwhile appeared eager to show that it had options. 'Nasa is assessing the earliest potential for a Starliner flight to the International Space Station in early 2026, pending system certification and resolution of Starliner's technical issues,' the agency said in a statement Friday to AFP. Still, the feud could sour Trump on space altogether, Forczyk cautioned, complicating Nasa's long-term plans. SpaceX isn't entirely dependent on the US government. Starlink subscriptions and commercial launches account for a significant share of its revenue, and the company also flies private missions. The next, with partner Axiom Space, will carry astronauts from India, Poland, and Hungary, funded by their respective governments. Private power, public risk But losing US government contracts would still be a major blow. 'It's such a doomsday scenario for both parties that it's hard to envision how US space efforts would fill the gap,' Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told AFP. 'Both sides have every reason to bridge the disagreement and get back to business.' Signs of a rift emerged last weekend, when the White House abruptly withdrew its nomination of e-payments billionaire Jared Isaacman — a close Musk ally who has twice flown to space with SpaceX — as Nasa administrator. On a recent podcast, Isaacman said he believed he was dropped because 'some people had some axes to grind, and I was a good, visible target.' The broader episode could also reignite debate over Washington's reliance on commercial partners, particularly when one company holds such a dominant position. Swope noted that while the US government has long favored buying services from industry, military leaders tend to prefer owning the systems they depend on. 'This is just another data point that might bolster the case for why it can be risky,' he said. 'I think that seed has been planted in a lot of people's minds — that it might not be worth the trust.' — AFP
Free Malaysia Today
13 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Trump-Musk showdown threatens US space plans
Founded in 2002, SpaceX leapfrogged legacy contractors to become the world's dominant launch provider. (File pic) WASHINGTON : SpaceX's rockets ferry US astronauts to the International Space Station. Its Starlink satellite constellation blankets the globe with broadband, and the company is embedded in some of the Pentagon's most sensitive projects, including tracking hypersonic missiles. So when president Donald Trump threatened on Thursday to cancel Elon Musk's federal contracts, space watchers snapped to attention. Musk, the world's richest person, shot back that he would mothball Dragon – the capsule NASA relies on for crew flights – before retracting the threat a few hours later. For now, experts say mutual dependence should keep a full-blown rupture at bay, but the episode exposes just how disruptive any break could be. Founded in 2002, SpaceX leapfrogged legacy contractors to become the world's dominant launch provider. Driven by Musk's ambition to make humanity multiplanetary, it is now NASA's sole means of sending astronauts to the ISS – a symbol of post–Cold War cooperation and a testbed for deeper space missions. The company has completed 10 regular crew rotations to the orbiting lab and is contracted for four more, under a deal worth nearly US$5 billion. That's just part of a broader portfolio that includes US$4 billion from NASA for developing Starship, the next-generation megarocket; nearly US$6 billion from the Space Force for launch services; and a reported US$1.8 billion for Starshield, a classified spy satellite network. Were Dragon grounded, the US would again be forced to rely on Russian Soyuz rockets for ISS access – as it did between 2011 and 2020, following the Space Shuttle's retirement and before Crew Dragon entered service. 'Under the current geopolitical climate, that would not be optimal,' space analyst Laura Forczyk told AFP. NASA had hoped Boeing's Starliner would provide redundancy, but persistent delays – and a failed crewed test last year – have kept it grounded. Even Northrop Grumman's cargo missions now rely on SpaceX's Falcon 9, the workhorse of its rocket fleet. The situation also casts a shadow over NASA's Artemis program. A lunar lander variant of Starship is slated for Artemis III and IV, the next US crewed Moon missions. If Starship were sidelined, rival Blue Origin could benefit – but the timeline would almost certainly slip, giving China, which aims to land humans by 2030, a chance to get there first, Forczyk warned. 'There are very few launch vehicles as capable as Falcon 9 – it isn't feasible to walk away as easily as President Trump might assume,' she said. NASA meanwhile appeared eager to show that it had options. 'NASA is assessing the earliest potential for a Starliner flight to the International Space Station in early 2026, pending system certification and resolution of Starliner's technical issues,' the agency said in a statement Friday to AFP. Still, the feud could sour Trump on space altogether, Forczyk cautioned, complicating NASA's long-term plans SpaceX isn't entirely dependent on the US government. Starlink subscriptions and commercial launches account for a significant share of its revenue, and the company also flies private missions. The next, with partner Axiom Space, will carry astronauts from India, Poland, and Hungary, funded by their respective governments. But losing US government contracts would still be a major blow. 'It's such a doomsday scenario for both parties that it's hard to envision how US space efforts would fill the gap,' Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the center for strategic and international studies, told AFP. 'Both sides have every reason to bridge the disagreement and get back to business.' Signs of a rift emerged last weekend, when the White House abruptly withdrew its nomination of e-payments billionaire Jared Isaacman – a close Musk ally who has twice flown to space with SpaceX – as NASA administrator. On a recent podcast, Isaacman said he believed he was dropped because 'some people had some axes to grind, and I was a good, visible target.' The broader episode could also reignite debate over Washington's reliance on commercial partners, particularly when one company holds such a dominant position. Swope noted that while the US government has long favored buying services from industry, military leaders tend to prefer owning the systems they depend on. 'This is just another data point that might bolster the case for why it can be risky,' he said. 'I think that seed has been planted in a lot of people's minds – that it might not be worth the trust.'
The Sun
a day ago
- The Sun
Trump-Musk showdown threatens US space plans
WASHINGTON: SpaceX's rockets ferry US astronauts to the International Space Station. Its Starlink satellite constellation blankets the globe with broadband, and the company is embedded in some of the Pentagon's most sensitive projects, including tracking hypersonic missiles. So when President Donald Trump threatened on Thursday to cancel Elon Musk's federal contracts, space watchers snapped to attention. Musk, the world's richest person, shot back that he would mothball Dragon -- the capsule NASA relies on for crew flights -- before retracting the threat a few hours later. For now, experts say mutual dependence should keep a full-blown rupture at bay, but the episode exposes just how disruptive any break could be. Founded in 2002, SpaceX leapfrogged legacy contractors to become the world's dominant launch provider. Driven by Musk's ambition to make humanity multiplanetary, it is now NASA's sole means of sending astronauts to the ISS -- a symbol of post-Cold War cooperation and a testbed for deeper space missions. - Space monopoly? - The company has completed 10 regular crew rotations to the orbiting lab and is contracted for four more, under a deal worth nearly $5 billion. That's just part of a broader portfolio that includes $4 billion from NASA for developing Starship, the next-generation megarocket; nearly $6 billion from the Space Force for launch services; and a reported $1.8 billion for Starshield, a classified spy satellite network. Were Dragon grounded, the United States would again be forced to rely on Russian Soyuz rockets for ISS access -- as it did between 2011 and 2020, following the Space Shuttle's retirement and before Crew Dragon entered service. 'Under the current geopolitical climate, that would not be optimal,' space analyst Laura Forczyk told AFP. NASA had hoped Boeing's Starliner would provide redundancy, but persistent delays -- and a failed crewed test last year -- have kept it grounded. Even Northrop Grumman's cargo missions now rely on SpaceX's Falcon 9, the workhorse of its rocket fleet. The situation also casts a shadow over NASA's Artemis program. A lunar lander variant of Starship is slated for Artemis III and IV, the next US crewed Moon missions. If Starship were sidelined, rival Blue Origin could benefit -- but the timeline would almost certainly slip, giving China, which aims to land humans by 2030, a chance to get there first, Forczyk warned. 'There are very few launch vehicles as capable as Falcon 9 -- it isn't feasible to walk away as easily as President Trump might assume,' she said. Still, the feud could sour Trump on space altogether, she added, complicating NASA's long-term plans. SpaceX isn't entirely dependent on the US government. Starlink subscriptions and commercial launches account for a significant share of its revenue, and the company also flies private missions. The next, with partner Axiom Space, will carry astronauts from India, Poland, and Hungary, funded by their respective governments. - Private power, public risk - But losing US government contracts would still be a major blow. 'It's such a doomsday scenario for both parties that it's hard to envision how US space efforts would fill the gap,' Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told AFP. 'Both sides have every reason to bridge the disagreement and get back to business.' Signs of a rift emerged last weekend, when the White House abruptly withdrew its nomination of e-payments billionaire Jared Isaacman -- a close Musk ally who has twice flown to space with SpaceX -- as NASA administrator. On a recent podcast, Isaacman said he believed he was dropped because 'some people had some axes to grind, and I was a good, visible target.' The broader episode could also reignite debate over Washington's reliance on commercial partners, particularly when one company holds such a dominant position. Swope noted that while the US government has long favored buying services from industry, military leaders tend to prefer owning the systems they depend on. 'This is just another data point that might bolster the case for why it can be risky,' he said. 'I think that seed has been planted in a lot of people's minds -- that it might not be worth the trust.'
