Hanjin denies pullout threat
Hanjin Heavy Industries & Construction Phil. Inc. Wednesday denied that it had threatened to pull out multibillion-dollar shipbuilding projects following claims its staff quarters rising in a forested area violated the environment.
“Hanjin is a decent company and we never threaten anybody,” Hanjin president Jeong Sup Shim told the Philippine Daily Inquirer (parent company of INQUIRER.net).
Asked to comment on a report of Lloyd’s List Online, an international maritime portal, Shim sent this text message: “We never threatened to pull out investment.”
Lloyd’s List’s April 8 report said: “If it gets any worse, [Hanjin] may be forced to review its investment program in the country.”
The report quoted Shim as saying that “Hanjin’s investment in the Philippines is one of this administration’s most praised achievements. Certain sections of the media who do not approve of the administration are seeking to undermine that achievement.”
Hanjin has invested $1.65 billion on a shipyard at the Subic Bay Freeport in Zambales and planned to build another $2-billion facility in Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental.
Recently, the firm came under fire from environmentalists for the construction of its two high-rise residential buildings in the middle of Subic’s lush forests.
Asked by the Inquirer in an interview on Monday how he felt about the controversies, Shim said: “To be frank with you, I am at a loss because sometimes the thing which I don’t think will create a big issue appears a very big issue.”
The issues were related to safety in Hanjin’s Subic shipyard where seven workers had died in accidents since last December, inadequate resettlement for displaced families, alleged unsanitary food given to workers and the forest constructions.
“In this apartment matter, we submitted our plan and we got a building permit from SBMA but the trend of newspapers was pointing that Hanjin polluted all the environment and as if Hanjin is the one who demolished the many, many trees. But in fact, this is the photo. This is before we started our construction. There are no trees. It is empty land with some small bunkers and some small buildings,” he said.
‘We will continue’
Asked if Hanjin would still continue doing business in the Philippines, Shim replied: “Since we already started our investment, we will continue our investment.”
The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority’s own land-use plan banned any developments at the Ilanin Forest East, where the condominium buildings are located, as stated in the environmental compliance certificate (ECC) issued by the SBMA to Hanjin.
“It will not be developed,” said SBMA’s land-use plan on Ilanin Forest East. The plan, prepared in 2000, was drawn up with the assistance of the Services Group of the World Bank.
In Hanjin’s ECC, issued on July 4, 2007, the exact location stated by the SBMA was “Naval Magazine, Ilanin East Forest.”
Told of this policy, SBMA Administrator Armand Arreza presented a map showing that the two buildings were located at the boundary of that forest.
Wrong reference
“Ameth made a wrong reference to the place,” Arreza said, attributing the mistake to Ametyha dela Llana-Koval, chief of the SBMA ecology center. Koval signed Hanjin’s ECC.
“Yes, that was an error. It happens sometimes,” Koval said when reached by the Inquirer.
To dispel suspicions by environmental groups that SBMA allowed the cutting of many trees, Arreza showed two old survey maps by the US Department of the Navy.
The first map, dated May 31, 1960, and made for a “site grading and drainage plan” near the extension security fence, showed details of “AUW Area A + B.” AUW stands for air and underwater weapons, Arreza said, noting the previous uses.
US Navy cleared forests
“This part of the forests was really cleared in the time of the US Navy because the areas had prior uses,” Arreza said.
The second map, dated May 31, 1966, was for the same plan on the same site. It gave details of Area B.
Both survey maps were made by the firm American Engineers and Architects.
Area A is presently used by the company Polar Marine while Area B is the site leased to Hanjin’s condominiums.
The 1966 map also showed that roads were previously built as access to both areas.
Trial by publicity
Jae Jung Jang, president of the Korean Chamber of Commerce Philippines Inc., Wednesday condemned a “seeming trial by publicity” of Hanjin “undertaken without due process and protection.”
Jang expressed concern that Hanjin, after pouring in $1.65 billion in the shipyard that had created some 10,000 jobs, would be “merely tagged as a brazen violator of public order and is exposed to unwarranted attacks and clouds of suspicion without proper verification.”
The indignation of environmentalists has been roused by news reports on the construction of two buildings—one towering 22 stories and another at 12 stories—purportedly to house Korean workers at Hanjin’s shipyard in Subic Bay.
Jang maintained that Hanjin’s construction of the two buildings were aboveboard and legal, citing SBMA statements that the project had the required government permits and an environmental compliance certificate.
Uncalled for
He pointed out that the construction site had long been cleared of trees, having been used as an ammunition storage facility of the former US Subic Bay Naval Base. “It is highly uncalled for to say that Hanjin disregarded environmental laws,” he said.
Jang said that if the underlying issue was environmental protection it should have been raised at the onset of construction, not when the project was 95 percent complete.
“This incident betrays the real situation in the Philippine investment climate: the sanctity and stability of contracts are not protected,” Jang said.
In a separate statement, Arreza said the two Hanjin buildings were not within the so-called “zero development zone” in Subic.
Arreza explained that the Hanjin project was within the Cubi-Triboa District, which has been designated for low-impact development projects.
He said other facilities found in this area are the two-story Edge Water residential suites built in 1996; 21 units of single detached APEC Villas (1996); five-story Pacific Ace building (2001); Bayshore warehouse (1999); Polar Marine assembly plant (1996); Subic Apparel garments factory (1993); DJ Aerospace aircraft parts assembly plant (1999); and the RCM Manufacturing’s factory for medical gloves (1999). With reports from Ronnel W. Domingo and Kristine L. Alave -- By Tonette Orejas - Central Luzon Desk
“Hanjin is a decent company and we never threaten anybody,” Hanjin president Jeong Sup Shim told the Philippine Daily Inquirer (parent company of INQUIRER.net).
Asked to comment on a report of Lloyd’s List Online, an international maritime portal, Shim sent this text message: “We never threatened to pull out investment.”
Lloyd’s List’s April 8 report said: “If it gets any worse, [Hanjin] may be forced to review its investment program in the country.”
The report quoted Shim as saying that “Hanjin’s investment in the Philippines is one of this administration’s most praised achievements. Certain sections of the media who do not approve of the administration are seeking to undermine that achievement.”
Hanjin has invested $1.65 billion on a shipyard at the Subic Bay Freeport in Zambales and planned to build another $2-billion facility in Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental.
Recently, the firm came under fire from environmentalists for the construction of its two high-rise residential buildings in the middle of Subic’s lush forests.
Asked by the Inquirer in an interview on Monday how he felt about the controversies, Shim said: “To be frank with you, I am at a loss because sometimes the thing which I don’t think will create a big issue appears a very big issue.”
The issues were related to safety in Hanjin’s Subic shipyard where seven workers had died in accidents since last December, inadequate resettlement for displaced families, alleged unsanitary food given to workers and the forest constructions.
“In this apartment matter, we submitted our plan and we got a building permit from SBMA but the trend of newspapers was pointing that Hanjin polluted all the environment and as if Hanjin is the one who demolished the many, many trees. But in fact, this is the photo. This is before we started our construction. There are no trees. It is empty land with some small bunkers and some small buildings,” he said.
‘We will continue’
Asked if Hanjin would still continue doing business in the Philippines, Shim replied: “Since we already started our investment, we will continue our investment.”
The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority’s own land-use plan banned any developments at the Ilanin Forest East, where the condominium buildings are located, as stated in the environmental compliance certificate (ECC) issued by the SBMA to Hanjin.
“It will not be developed,” said SBMA’s land-use plan on Ilanin Forest East. The plan, prepared in 2000, was drawn up with the assistance of the Services Group of the World Bank.
In Hanjin’s ECC, issued on July 4, 2007, the exact location stated by the SBMA was “Naval Magazine, Ilanin East Forest.”
Told of this policy, SBMA Administrator Armand Arreza presented a map showing that the two buildings were located at the boundary of that forest.
Wrong reference
“Ameth made a wrong reference to the place,” Arreza said, attributing the mistake to Ametyha dela Llana-Koval, chief of the SBMA ecology center. Koval signed Hanjin’s ECC.
“Yes, that was an error. It happens sometimes,” Koval said when reached by the Inquirer.
To dispel suspicions by environmental groups that SBMA allowed the cutting of many trees, Arreza showed two old survey maps by the US Department of the Navy.
The first map, dated May 31, 1960, and made for a “site grading and drainage plan” near the extension security fence, showed details of “AUW Area A + B.” AUW stands for air and underwater weapons, Arreza said, noting the previous uses.
US Navy cleared forests
“This part of the forests was really cleared in the time of the US Navy because the areas had prior uses,” Arreza said.
The second map, dated May 31, 1966, was for the same plan on the same site. It gave details of Area B.
Both survey maps were made by the firm American Engineers and Architects.
Area A is presently used by the company Polar Marine while Area B is the site leased to Hanjin’s condominiums.
The 1966 map also showed that roads were previously built as access to both areas.
Trial by publicity
Jae Jung Jang, president of the Korean Chamber of Commerce Philippines Inc., Wednesday condemned a “seeming trial by publicity” of Hanjin “undertaken without due process and protection.”
Jang expressed concern that Hanjin, after pouring in $1.65 billion in the shipyard that had created some 10,000 jobs, would be “merely tagged as a brazen violator of public order and is exposed to unwarranted attacks and clouds of suspicion without proper verification.”
The indignation of environmentalists has been roused by news reports on the construction of two buildings—one towering 22 stories and another at 12 stories—purportedly to house Korean workers at Hanjin’s shipyard in Subic Bay.
Jang maintained that Hanjin’s construction of the two buildings were aboveboard and legal, citing SBMA statements that the project had the required government permits and an environmental compliance certificate.
Uncalled for
He pointed out that the construction site had long been cleared of trees, having been used as an ammunition storage facility of the former US Subic Bay Naval Base. “It is highly uncalled for to say that Hanjin disregarded environmental laws,” he said.
Jang said that if the underlying issue was environmental protection it should have been raised at the onset of construction, not when the project was 95 percent complete.
“This incident betrays the real situation in the Philippine investment climate: the sanctity and stability of contracts are not protected,” Jang said.
In a separate statement, Arreza said the two Hanjin buildings were not within the so-called “zero development zone” in Subic.
Arreza explained that the Hanjin project was within the Cubi-Triboa District, which has been designated for low-impact development projects.
He said other facilities found in this area are the two-story Edge Water residential suites built in 1996; 21 units of single detached APEC Villas (1996); five-story Pacific Ace building (2001); Bayshore warehouse (1999); Polar Marine assembly plant (1996); Subic Apparel garments factory (1993); DJ Aerospace aircraft parts assembly plant (1999); and the RCM Manufacturing’s factory for medical gloves (1999). With reports from Ronnel W. Domingo and Kristine L. Alave -- By Tonette Orejas - Central Luzon Desk
Labels: condominium towers, ecology, hanjin, sbma, Subic Bay
posted by OlongapoCity Zambales at
6:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home