13/05/2026
(中文 ) (English)
【槟城稀土开发争议：发展路线是否已经走向“过度扩张”？】
近期有关槟城可能涉及稀土资源开发的讨论，引发社会对环境、发展方向以及政策一致性的关注。从整体发展路径来看，槟城目前正处于一个多线并进的城市转型阶段，但也正因为如此，更需要冷静审视：州政府是否正在走向一种“过度扩张式发展”，甚至在不同领域之间缺乏清晰边界与优先排序。
首先必须承认，槟城近年来的发展确实积极而迅速。州内持续推动多个工业园区扩展，强化峇都加湾与北赖等科技工业走廊，并积极提升科技园区定位。同时，大型填海造地计划持续进行，人工岛项目不断推进，以扩展土地资源。此外，轻快铁（LRT）基础设施工程正在规划与落实阶段，州政府亦多次表达希望提升槟城作为区域金融与服务中心的地位。
这些方向本身并非问题，甚至可以说是槟城迈向现代化城市的重要组成部分。然而，当这些发展项目尚在消化与落实阶段之际，如今又提出或讨论稀土开采的可能性，就不由得让人质疑：这种“再增加一个高风险产业选项”的研究与讨论，本身是否已经显得多余。
从现实角度来看，槟城的核心发展蓝图早已明确。槟州首长曾在今年4月接受《东方日报》专访时强调，槟城的发展目标是打造“宜居城市”，并重申“槟城2030愿景”的核心精神，即以生活品质、可持续发展与绿色经济为主轴。这意味着，政策方向本身已经清楚指向“宜居与永续”，而非高风险采矿业。
在此背景下，再去讨论是否要在槟城开采稀土，不仅在经济逻辑上存在争议，在政策一致性上也显得与既定愿景有所偏离。可以说，这种“研究开采可能性”的讨论，某种程度上已经脱离了发展重点，甚至削弱了公众对政策方向的清晰认知。
更值得关注的是，国际经验早已反复证明，稀土开采并不是“低风险资源开发”。即使在部分国家初期以“技术可控”、“污染可管理”为论述基础推动开发，实际运行后仍然多次出现严重环境问题。
例如，中国在部分早期稀土开采地区，曾一度以“发展可控”为前提推进产业，但后来在内蒙古包头等地区，却出现长期土地污染、水体重金属累积及生态破坏问题，甚至导致部分区域治理成本极高、迁移与修复压力持续多年。所谓“可以控制污染”的信心，在现实执行层面往往被证明远比预期复杂。
同样，在美国加州芒廷帕斯（Mountain Pass）稀土矿历史上，也曾因环境污染问题被迫多次停产与整改。即使在监管体系较为完善的发达国家，稀土产业依然难以摆脱污染治理成本高昂、环境争议长期存在的现实。
这些案例说明一个关键事实：稀土产业的问题，并不在于“有没有能力开采”，而在于“是否值得在特定地点承担风险”。即便是技术能力强、监管体系成熟的大国，也无法完全避免环境代价，更遑论土地有限、人口密集的城市州属。
因此，问题回到槟城本身，就更加清晰：在一个高度城市化、生态空间有限、人口密集的州属推进稀土开采研究，不仅风险极高，而且从发展优先级来看也缺乏必要性。
与此同时，槟城的整体发展路径已经非常明确。工业园区扩展、科技产业升级、填海造地、交通基建建设，以及金融与服务业转型，已经构成一个高度紧凑的发展组合。在这种情况下，再叠加高污染风险产业，只会让州政府在治理复杂度、社会争议与环境承载能力上同时承压。
更重要的是，发展不能只停留在“项目叠加”的逻辑，而必须回到治理本质。如果一个州属同时推进多个大型开发工程，再引入矿业开发，却缺乏充分公开讨论与风险共识，那么最终损耗的将不仅是环境资源，还有公众信任。
此外，任何涉及重大环境风险的决策，都不应以单向“为了人民发展”的叙述来替代公共讨论。真正的“为了人民”，应当建立在透明资讯、科学评估与民意参与之上。
人民从来没有提出以牺牲生态环境换取稀土收入的诉求。相反，槟城长期社会共识是追求宜居、安全与高品质生活。因此，在任何涉及不可逆环境风险的议题上，更应该通过合适机制进行公开民意咨询，而不是在缺乏充分社会共识的情况下推进方向性讨论。
因此可以明确指出：在当前发展阶段下，槟城再去研究稀土开采的可能性，不仅是优先级错误，更可能偏离“槟城2030宜居城市愿景”的核心方向。
槟城的未来，不在地下资源，而在其宜居性、人才结构与城市品质。一旦在关键生态问题上做出不可逆选择，其代价将远远超过任何短期经济收益。
---------------
𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐑𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐃𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐲: 𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐌𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 “𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧”?
Recent discussions regarding the possibility of rare earth development in Penang have sparked public concern over environmental protection, development direction, and policy consistency. From the broader development trajectory, Penang is currently undergoing a multi-pronged urban transformation. However, precisely because of this, it is important to take a step back and examine whether the state is drifting toward an “overexpansion model” of development, where priorities become blurred and boundaries between sectors are no longer clearly defined.
First, it must be acknowledged that Penang’s recent development has been both active and rapid. The state continues to expand multiple industrial parks, strengthen the Batu Kawan and Perai industrial corridors, and enhance its position as a technology and manufacturing hub. At the same time, large-scale land reclamation projects are ongoing, including artificial island developments aimed at increasing land capacity. In addition, Light Rail Transit (LRT) infrastructure projects are in planning and implementation stages, while the state government has also expressed ambitions to position Penang as a regional financial and services hub.
Individually, these directions are not necessarily problematic. In fact, they represent key components of Penang’s modernization strategy. However, when these major development agendas are still being absorbed and implemented, the renewed discussion on rare earth mining raises a critical question: whether the continued exploration of such a high-risk industry has already become unnecessary in the current policy context.
From a policy standpoint, Penang’s development direction has already been clearly defined. The Chief Minister, in an interview with *Oriental Daily* in April this year, emphasized Penang’s goal of becoming a “livable city” and reaffirmed the core principles of the Penang 2030 Vision, which prioritizes quality of life, sustainable development, and a green economy. This clearly indicates that the state’s strategic direction is oriented toward livability and sustainability, rather than high-risk extractive industries.
In this context, reopening discussions on rare earth mining not only raises economic and environmental questions, but also appears increasingly misaligned with the established development framework. In many ways, the continued “study of feasibility” for mining operations in Penang can be seen as a diversion from core priorities, potentially diluting the clarity of long-term policy direction.
International experience has repeatedly shown that rare earth mining is not a low-risk industry. Even in countries that initially framed it as “technologically controllable” and “environmentally manageable,” real-world operations have often led to significant environmental consequences.
For example, in China, certain rare earth mining regions—such as those in Baotou, Inner Mongolia—have been widely documented in environmental studies as facing long-term soil contamination and heavy metal accumulation in water systems, resulting in extremely costly remediation and rehabilitation efforts over decades. What was once presented as “controlled development” has proven far more complex and damaging in practice than initially assumed.
Similarly, in the United States, the Mountain Pass rare earth mine in California has experienced multiple shutdowns and regulatory interventions due to environmental concerns and pollution-related issues. Even under a highly regulated and technologically advanced system, the industry has struggled to avoid environmental controversy and long-term ecological management challenges.
These cases highlight a key reality: the central issue of rare earth mining is not whether it can be done, but whether it is worth the environmental and social risks in a specific location. Even major economies with strong governance frameworks have not been able to fully eliminate its environmental footprint.
When applied to Penang, the concern becomes even more pronounced. As a highly urbanized, densely populated state with limited land and closely interwoven ecological and residential zones, any extractive activity would inevitably carry significant risks to forests, water catchment areas, and surrounding communities.
At the same time, Penang’s overall development agenda is already extensive and tightly packed—industrial expansion, technological upgrading, land reclamation, transport infrastructure development, and financial sector positioning. Introducing another high-impact, high-risk industry into this framework would further increase governance complexity and social tension.
More importantly, development should not be viewed as a process of endlessly stacking projects. It must be grounded in clear priorities and governance coherence. When multiple large-scale development initiatives are pursued simultaneously, while also introducing extractive industry discussions without broad public consensus, the result is not only environmental pressure but also erosion of public trust.
It is also important to emphasize that development decisions of such magnitude should not be justified solely through top-down narratives such as “for the benefit of the people.” Genuine public interest must be grounded in transparency, scientific assessment, and meaningful public consultation.
The people of Penang have never expressed a demand for sacrificing environmental integrity in exchange for rare earth revenues. On the contrary, there is a long-standing social consensus favoring livability, safety, and high-quality urban living. Therefore, any discussion involving irreversible environmental risk should be subjected to proper public consultation mechanisms rather than being advanced without broad societal agreement.
In this regard, it is also worth noting that the idea of conducting feasibility studies on rare earth mining in Penang may itself be unnecessary at this stage, given the already clearly defined policy direction toward a livable, sustainable state.
Penang’s Chief Minister has clearly articulated that the state’s goal is to build a livable city under the Penang 2030 Vision, which prioritizes sustainability and quality of life. Against this backdrop, further exploration of high-risk mining activities appears increasingly disconnected from the stated long-term vision.
In conclusion, Penang’s future does not lie beneath the ground in mineral resources, but in its livability, talent ecosystem, and urban quality. Once irreversible environmental decisions are made in such a constrained and sensitive context, the long-term costs will far outweigh any short-term economic gains.
----------------
资料参考：
1. 《东方日报》- "【行动党60周年】曹观友：行动党致力将槟城打造为宜居城市 " , 发布于 2026年04月15日 https://www.orientaldaily.com.my/news/north/2026/04/15/811382
2. 美国环保局（EPA）于2014年4月15日发布的新闻稿，旨在披露Molycorp Minerals因其Mountain Pass设施违反危险废物规定被罚款27,300美元的事实。该文档包含符合APA、MLA和Chicago格式的完整引用信息，明确了作者（U.S. Environmental Protection Agency）、发布日期、标题及存档网页来源。您可以直接在EPA Archive网站查阅原始文档详情。 https://www.epa.gov/archive/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/6e94180b229d259485257cc100613ae9.html
3.《 BBC走訪全球最大稀土礦場：中國稀土供應鏈背後的污染災害－ BBC News 中文 》， 原视频： https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w88jqiXa_PE
4. 《稀土的代價：中國主產區被污染的水源和傷痕累累的山丘》，发布于BBC ， 2025年7月9日 ， http://bbc.com/zhongwen/articles/c2d0z78j3dko/trad
5. 《全球稀土产业链的尽头：包头，和它承受的代价》， https://theinitium.com/20260203-mainland-baotou-and-rare-earths-zh-hans/
6. MOUNTAIN PASS: Molycorp fined for mishandling toxic waste ,By David Danelski , April 21, 2014, https://www.pressenterprise.com/2014/04/21/mountain-pass-molycorp-fined-for-mishandling-toxic-waste/
7. 李志良：《【红泥山事件】悲剧历历在目，那是挥之不去的梦靥》 ， 20 Sep 2019， https://www.themalaysianinsight.com/chinese/s/182152
