Author: Webmaster

Categories
Southeast Asia Noise Nuisance Case Law

When “Normal” Noise Wins: Supreme Court of the Philippines on HVAC Nuisance in Makati CBD

normal noise wins in Philippines noise court case

A 2020 decision in Frabelle Properties Corp. v. AC Enterprises, Inc. (G.R. No. 245438) from the Supreme Court of the Philippines has become a reference point for HVAC noise disputes in dense business districts. The full judgement is available on the court’s own website. The case involved long-running complaints about air-conditioning blowers on one high-rise sending noise and hot exhaust air towards a neighbouring mixed-use condominium in the Makati Central Business District. Despite years of pressure, measurements and enforcement attempts, the final judgement refused to treat the remaining noise as an actionable nuisance.

For stakeholders across Southeast Asia, this dispute is a strategic reminder that environmental noise cases turn not only on decibel values, but also on location, mitigation history and proof of impact on people with ordinary sensibilities. It also shows where specialist acoustics input and expert witness work can materially shift the outcome.

Background: blowers, complaints and competing measurements

The dispute arose between the owner of a mixed-use tower that managed residential and commercial tenants, and the owner of a nearby building whose façade carried 36 condenser blowers serving air-cooled chillers. The equipment was mounted on several floors, facing directly towards living spaces across a relatively narrow street. Residents reported continuous mechanical noise and warm exhaust air that allegedly made balconies unusable and reduced rental values.

Local environmental officers and the Environmental Management Bureau of the Philippines carried out several sound level measurements during the 1990s and around the turn of the century. Some of the earlier tests recorded levels above the commonly cited 65 dB guideline for that type of urban zone. The City Government of Makati eventually issued a cease-and-desist order and required mitigation.

In response, the plant owner implemented a progressive package of engineering controls: replacing some blowers, adding sound-attenuating elements and re-routing discharge so that hot air no longer blew directly at the neighbouring façade. Follow-up measurements commissioned by the city showed sound pressure levels in the low-60-dB range at critical receiver positions, which sat within the municipal benchmark for a commercial district.

Despite this, the complaining owner maintained that the HVAC plant remained intolerably loud and continued to pursue relief through the courts.

First-stage judgment: trial court finds a private nuisance

At first instance, the regional trial court accepted the narrative that blower noise was still excessive. The court relied heavily on historical exceedances, on anecdotal statements from inspectors and on witness testimony from a resident who described sleep disruption, discomfort and the need to keep balcony doors closed while operating her own air-conditioner constantly.

On that evidentiary base, the trial court concluded that the HVAC plant created a private nuisance and granted a permanent injunction alongside financial compensation for alleged lost income.

normal noise wins in Philippines noise court case

Appellate reversal: evidence and context re-evaluated

On appeal, the higher court was more sceptical. It noted that later sound level measurements, taken after mitigation works, showed compliance with the applicable noise limits for the area. Historic measurement reports, while not irrelevant, were given less weight because they did not reflect the situation at the time of judgement.

The appellate court also questioned whether the claimant had demonstrated disturbance to a person of ordinary sensibilities. The fact that only a single tenant testified, without broader survey data or medical evidence, made it difficult to prove that the residual noise exceeded what a reasonable resident should expect in a busy business neighbourhood.

The injunction and damages award were therefore set aside.

Final outcome: high court confirms “no actionable nuisance”

When the case reached the highest level, the court affirmed the appellate decision and clarified three key principles for environmental noise disputes in dense urban zones:

  1. Locality matters. Noise is assessed in context. What may be intolerable in a quiet suburb can be considered normal in a central business district characterised by traffic, plant rooms and 24/7 building services.
  2. Compliance data beats historic exceedances. If current operations demonstrably meet the relevant standard for the zone, older exceedance data will not usually justify severe remedies like shutdown orders or large damages.
  3. Impact on ordinary people must be proven. Courts look for disturbance to a reasonably tolerant, typical resident – supported by multiple testimonies, logs, or expert and medical evidence – not just by the accounts of a particularly sensitive individual.

The decision does not say that HVAC noise can never be a nuisance; instead, it holds that the evidence in this specific dispute fell short of that threshold once mitigation had been implemented.

Implications for developers, operators and regulators in Southeast Asia

Developers and property owners

  • Integrate acoustics early in design: treat external units, cooling towers, chillers and exhaust fans as critical noise sources that must be modelled, not afterthoughts.
  • Design to meet noise limits with a safety margin, accounting for equipment ageing and potential future complaints.
  • Create a formal log of complaints, site visits, measurements and mitigation works; long-term documentation can be decisive in litigation.

Facility and EHS managers

  • Commission independent baseline measurements before and after major plant changes.
  • Document instruments, settings, locations and weather conditions so that reports are court-ready.
  • When complaints arise, combine technical findings with human impact data (sleep diaries, disturbance logs, tenant surveys) to show that the issue is being managed transparently.

Regulators and local authorities

  • Use clear, zoning-based criteria and publish test procedures to reduce disputes about methodology.
  • Prefer current, traceable measurements over informal observations when deciding whether enforcement is justified.
  • Where internal capacity or equipment is limited, engage independent acoustic consultants to ensure defensible results.

How Geonoise Asia can support future cases

For noise disputes around building services, plant rooms and mixed-use developments, Geonoise Asia can add value at each stage of the lifecycle:

  • Pre-project advisory: predicting HVAC and equipment noise using modelling, and recommending layouts or enclosures that minimise risk before construction.
  • Compliance and optimisation: performing sound level surveys, interpreting local standards, and advising on practical mitigation that balances acoustics, energy and cost.
  • Dispute resolution and expert witness work: preparing clear, traceable reports and visualisations that decision-makers can understand, and providing independent expert testimony when required.

By combining strong technical methods with a clear understanding of how courts analyse nuisance, Geonoise Asia helps owners, operators, regulators and communities achieve solutions that are both acoustically robust and legally defensible.

Categories
Asia Noise News Southeast Asia Noise Nuisance Case Law

Why this Thai case matters for noise nuisance disputes in Southeast Asia

Noise Nuisande orders need evidence
Noise Nuisande orders need evidence

In 2024, the Supreme Administrative Court of Thailand issued decision A.58/2567 in a dispute between a tofu factory and local authorities. The case looks simple on the surface – neighbours complained about night-time noise from factory operations – but the judgment sends a strong message to regulators and operators across Southeast Asia: noise nuisance orders must be backed by defensible technical evidence, not just assumptions or feelings.

For Geonoise Asia, this is exactly the type of case where independent acoustic expertise, correct measurements and robust documentation make the difference between a legally sustainable order and one that will be struck down on appeal.

Case background: complaints about tofu factory noise

Residents in an urban neighbourhood complained that a tofu factory was operating at night using machinery and activities that allegedly generated disturbing noise – from production equipment and cleaning to handling water, moving carts and talking. Local officials treated the factory as a potential “health-hazardous business” under Thailand’s Public Health Act B.E. 2535 (1992) and opened an investigation.

Health officers attempted to take sound measurements at the complainant’s house. The resident did not allow instruments to be placed inside the dwelling, so the team installed a meter outside the house for three days. During that period, the tofu production did not run at night and no decisive evidence of excessive noise was captured. Authorities therefore had no measured data showing that noise levels breached any statutory limit.

Despite this, the district director – acting as the local public health authority – issued a formal nuisance abatement order under Section 28 of the Public Health Act. The order instructed the factory owner to “correct and improve” operations and to avoid any actions that would cause noise disturbance at night.

The factory appealed to the Minister of Public Health but received no effective response, and ultimately brought the matter before the Administrative Court, asking for the abatement order to be revoked. The first-instance Administrative Court dismissed the claim and upheld the order, so the operator appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

What the Supreme Administrative Court decided

At the heart of the case was a very practical question: can a nuisance order be based on assumptions that noise is “likely” to exceed legal limits, without any compliant measurement?

The Court examined the relevant Thai technical standards, in particular:

  • The National Environmental Board (NEB) notification on environmental noise limits, which treats noise as a nuisance when the level exceeds background noise by more than 10 dB(A).
  • The Department of Health notification on nuisance criteria for noise, which aligns with the same 10 dB(A) concept and requires methodical measurement.

The Court noted that the district office had never actually measured and calculated whether the factory’s noise exceeded background by more than 10 dB(A) during real operating conditions. The only documented conclusion was that if night-time production took place, it “might” disturb nearby residents. There was no quantitative proof, no properly documented measurement session at the relevant times, and no calculation showing a breach of the 10 dB(A) threshold.

On that basis, the Supreme Administrative Court held that:

  • A local authority may have power to issue nuisance abatement orders, but that power must be exercised on the basis of reliable technical evidence, not only on subjective impressions or speculative assessments.
  • Because no compliant sound measurements were carried out, the authority had not demonstrated that the legal criteria for “noise nuisance” were met.
  • The abatement order was therefore unlawful and had to be revoked.

In simple terms: even if neighbours sincerely feel disturbed, the law requires that a noise nuisance be proven using accepted measurement methods and thresholds; “it probably exceeds the standard” is not enough.

Key legal and technical principles from this case

  • Scientific evidence is mandatory. For noise nuisance, authorities must rely on correctly executed sound measurements – including equipment, locations, time periods and reference standards – not purely on complaints or officers’ subjective impressions.
  • The 10 dB(A) rule matters. In Thailand, environmental and public health regulations treat noise as a nuisance when it exceeds background noise by more than 10 dB(A). Without that differential being established, enforcement is on shaky ground.
  • Procedural errors can invalidate orders. If an authority issues a closure or abatement order without going through the legally required measurement and documentation steps, affected operators can challenge the order in court and obtain its cancellation.
  • Courts expect professional practice. Environmental and neighbour-noise cases must be built on strong factual and technical foundations, not assumptions.

Implications for regulators, operators and communities in Southeast Asia

For regulators and local authorities

  • Do not issue noise nuisance orders without a traceable measurement campaign aligned with your national standards.
  • Document sound level meter type, calibration, locations, measurement periods, background levels and calculations.
  • Consider partnering with independent acoustic consultants where internal expertise or equipment is limited.

For factories, venues and hospitality operators

  • Proactively commission baseline noise surveys around your facility, especially for night-time operations.
  • Maintain a measurement record to show regulators and courts that your operations comply with limits, or that you have a mitigation plan in place.
  • If you receive a nuisance order, check whether it is supported by proper measurements; if not, you may have legal arguments based on this precedent.

For residents and communities

  • Complaints are still important – they trigger investigations – but attaching recordings and indicative sound level readings will increase their weight.
  • Court cases are more likely to succeed when community testimony is supported by objective measurements from recognised methods and instruments.

How Geonoise Asia can support as expert witness and technical partner

This case is a textbook example of why independent acoustics expertise is critical in noise disputes:

  • Authorities need coherent, standards-based measurements to sustain their orders.
  • Operators need robust counter-evidence to challenge orders that are not properly substantiated.

Geonoise Asia can support public and private stakeholders throughout Southeast Asia by:

  • Designing and executing noise measurement campaigns that follow national and international standards.
  • Preparing clear, court-ready reports that explain methodology, uncertainty and compliance in language judges and lawyers can work with.
  • Acting as independent expert witnesses in administrative and civil proceedings where noise levels, nuisance and mitigation measures are in dispute.
  • Helping regulators and municipalities build internal procedures for defensible measurements and documentation.

For local authorities, that reduces litigation risk and increases public trust. For operators, it ensures that your side of the story is backed by credible data. For communities, it means noise complaints are treated seriously and resolved on the basis of facts, not just emotion.

Checklist: building a defensible noise nuisance case

Whether you are a regulator, operator or community representative in any Southeast Asian country, this Thai judgment suggests a simple checklist:

  • Define the relevant legal standard (for example, 10 dB(A) above background, night-time limits, zoning rules).
  • Plan the measurement (locations, time windows, instrumentation, calibration, background measurements).
  • Record and store raw data and logs – not just summary numbers.
  • Analyse and report with traceability so that another expert can independently review your findings.
  • Engage independent acoustics experts early when you expect the dispute may escalate to court.

Geonoise Asia is ready to support stakeholders across Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore and the wider region who need evidence-based, defensible solutions to noise nuisance disputes – from early complaint investigations all the way to expert testimony in court.

Categories
Noise Disturbance Noise-th

Pattaya’s nightmare noise as the resort town struggles for quiet and rest

Thailand’s Pattaya Although Pattaya is well-known for its nightlife, sun, and sand, it is also becoming known for something much less desirable: noise pollution. Even though the city depends heavily on tourism and entertainment, both locals and less nighttime tourists are finding it difficult to tolerate the noise coming from bars, outdoor performances, karaoke stages, and rumbling trucks.

Not everyone in Pattaya is a night owl, despite the city’s reputation as a 24-hour party destination. After midnight, many locals and long-term residents attempt to sleep, but are constantly roused by loud music, roaring motorcycles, and booming trucks. Excessive noise has become an almost constant companion, even in resort areas where peace and quiet should be a part of the experience.

In order to ensure that sound regulations are being followed, city officials have begun to inspect events. In general, concert organizers, traditional Mor Lam performers, and other event planners have complied, reducing the volume when asked. The sheer volume of events in Pattaya, however, makes it practically impossible to keep an eye on every street corner, and enforcement is still patchy.


The issue is made worse by nightlife establishments and visitors, who frequently believe that the louder the better. Karaoke bars blast tunes throughout neighborhoods, and outdoor music events continue late into the night. Even the streets play a part, as trucks and motorcycles scream through the silence, frequently with no regard for people who are trying to sleep.

There are more serious repercussions than just irritation. A lower quality of life, more stress, and lack of sleep have all been connected to noise pollution. Longtime residents find the nonstop bustle of entertainment to be a distraction from what ought to be a tranquil seaside town, and visitors hoping for a peaceful retreat might be let down.

Pattaya must strike a balance between its thriving nightlife and its citizens’ fundamental right to tranquility. If city officials, business owners, and tourists all follow the rules, then more stringent monitoring, better event planning, and stricter adherence to decibel limits may be beneficial. Locals who are sleep deprived will have to endure a constant barrage of heightened entertainment while they count down the hours until dawn.

References

www.pattayamail.com

Categories
Building Accoustics

ISO 3382-1 Committee Draft Released: Why This Revision Matters for Room Acoustics

ISO 3382-1 Committee Draft Released
ISO 3382-1 Committee Draft Released

Introduction

The committee draft of ISO 3382-1 has just been released. This international standard defines how we measure reverberation time (RT) and related room acoustic parameters in performance spaces such as concert halls and theatres.

While the details may seem subtle, a revision here carries weight: it impacts how acoustic consultants, architects, contractors, and venue owners design, specify, commission, and verify music and speech venues worldwide.

What is ISO 3382-1?

ISO 3382-1, titled “Acoustics — Measurement of room acoustic parameters — Part 1: Performance spaces”, provides standardized methods for measuring:

  • Reverberation Time (RT)
  • Speech Clarity (C50)
  • Music Clarity (C80)
  • Other room-acoustic parameters critical for performance spaces

This standard ensures consistency in design evaluation, acoustic measurements, and project acceptance criteria across the globe.

Why Do These Revisions Matter?

Even minor changes in definitions, procedures, or tolerances can ripple across multiple phases of a project:

  • Design briefs: Consultants may need to adjust specifications for compliance.
  • Commissioning & acceptance testing: Measurement methods may be more stringent or redefined.
  • Verification: Test results must align with updated tolerances.

In short, these updates could affect everything from the initial design intent to the final handover of performance spaces.

Who Should Pay Attention?

  • Architects & Acoustic Engineers → Must update design methods to remain compliant.
  • Contractors & System Integrators → Measurement and acceptance workflows may shift.
  • Venue Owners & Operators → Compliance impacts usability, reputation, and performance quality.

Looking Ahead

The upcoming revision of ISO 3382-1 may tighten requirements on how we specify and verify room parameters, ensuring more reliable and standardized results across the industry.

Geonoise Asia will continue to monitor these changes and provide independent consulting to help clients stay aligned with the latest standards in room acoustics and building acoustics.

Contact Geonoise Asia
Categories
Building Accoustics

5 Common Acoustic Design Mistakes in Architecture — And How to Avoid Them

Common Acoustic Design Mistakes in Architecture — And How to Avoid Them
Common Acoustic Design Mistakes in Architecture — And How to Avoid Them

In today’s evolving Thai architecture scene, client expectations go beyond beauty and functionality. Acoustic comfort and noise control are fast becoming essential standards for high-quality buildings — whether it’s a luxury condo in Bangkok, a resort in Phuket, or a new hospital in Chiang Mai.

However, we still see beautifully designed buildings suffering from poor sound environments because acoustic planning was treated as a secondary issue. At Geonoise Thailand, we’ve seen how proactive noise and vibration planning from the start of a project can prevent problems before they arise. Here are five common mistakes Thai architects make when acoustics are not integrated early — and how to avoid them.

1. Choosing the Wrong Materials for Sound Control

Issue: Materials are often selected for thermal performance or aesthetics, but not for sound. For example, thin gypsum walls or unsealed glass panels may look modern but allow noise to pass through easily.

Solution: Understand the sound insulation ratings of materials, such as STC or RW values, and consult an acoustic expert to select the right components for the noise levels expected.

2. Ignoring Building Services Noise

Issue: Mechanical noise from air conditioning units, water pumps, elevators, or generators can severely disturb spaces that need quiet, like bedrooms, classrooms, or consultation rooms.

Solution: Plan M&E systems with acoustics in mind — use vibration isolation, strategic placement, and proper sound insulation from the design stage.

3. Poor Room Layout Without Acoustic Zoning

Issue: Quiet spaces (like meeting rooms or bedrooms) are sometimes located next to noisy zones (kitchens, trash rooms, lift lobbies) without proper separation.

Solution: Use acoustic zoning — place noisy and quiet areas strategically, with buffer zones or sound-rated partitions in between.

4. Underestimating Low-Frequency Noise

Issue: Bass-heavy sounds from music, rooftop machinery, or subwoofers can penetrate walls and travel far, disrupting even well-insulated rooms.

Solution: Use noise modeling tools and select high-mass materials or vibration-damping designs to control low-frequency sound.

5. Bringing in an Acoustic Expert Too Late

Issue: Consultants are often called in after construction or when residents complain — fixing issues at this stage is usually expensive and limited.

Solution: Engage an acoustic consultant during the conceptual or schematic design phase. Early involvement helps resolve potential problems while saving time and cost.

Conclusion

Acoustic comfort is no longer optional — it’s a new benchmark for quality buildings. If you prioritize sound early in your design process, you’ll add real value to your architecture and strengthen your professional reputation.

At Geonoise Thailand, we support architects with precision tools, ISO17025-compliant services, and real-world experience. We ensure every decibel is managed effectively.

Want expert support from the start of your project? 

 

Categories
Noise Disturbance Noise-th

After months of tolerating noisy Kuwaiti motorcycle groups, Pattaya takes firm action against them

Thailand’s Pattaya Pattaya police and local administrative officers have finally launched a coordinated operation to rein in rowdy foreign motorbike riders—many of whom have been identified as Kuwaiti nationals—who have been disturbing peace with their reckless driving and late-night revving after months of public frustration and sleepless nights in Soi Yensabai.

On July 15, at approximately 2:50 a.m., security division head Nathaphop Yomjinda from the Banglamung District Office and officers from Pattaya Police Station, under the command of Pol. Capt. Chaowalit Suwanmanee, established a checkpoint inside the soi. 14 motorcycles were seized by the joint patrol, which concentrated on riders without valid licenses and vehicles with illegally loud exhaust modifications.

Local residents say they have endured nightly chaos from foreign riders—especially big bikes operated by Arab tourists—who race up and down the narrow lanes, revving engines and disrupting entire neighborhoods. One resident commented that it seems like the riders think the area is their playground, making noise all night and then scattering and returning as soon as police leave.

Even when checkpoints are established, some groups use messaging apps to warn each other, often abandoning their bikes temporarily and walking around until the coast is clear. Locals are calling for stronger and more permanent enforcement to restore peace to the community.

On social media, irate residents have voiced their frustration over the ongoing issue and questioned why bike rental companies are permitted to distribute bikes without verifying licenses. Many people think that police should hold rental companies responsible and put repeat offenders on a blacklist if they are serious about solving the problem. Recently, while sitting outside, one resident reported seeing riders even driving on the sidewalk, with police simply passing by without intervening.

In order to use the Immigration Act to deport violators who pose a threat to public order, some have proposed involving immigration authorities. Others have questioned whether motorcycle rental companies—especially those that alter bikes or disregard safety inspections in order to increase profits during tourist seasons—are being held accountable.

In order to ensure that both renters and rental shops face consequences, authorities have promised more forceful action, indicating plans for wider coordination with immigration, tourist police, and local licensing offices. The public’s increasing demand for substantive solutions rather than sporadic nightly checkpoints is reflected in this operation.

One officer stated, “This is about defending the rights of local residents to sleep in peace, not about targeting foreigners.” “And we haven’t finished yet.”

 

On July 15, at approximately 2:50 a.m., security division head Nathaphop Yomjinda from the Banglamung District Office and officers from Pattaya Police Station, under the command of Pol. Capt. Chaowalit Suwanmanee, established a checkpoint inside the soi. 14 motorcycles were seized by the joint patrol, which concentrated on riders without valid licenses and vehicles with illegally loud exhaust modifications.

Local residents say they have endured nightly chaos from foreign riders—especially big bikes operated by Arab tourists—who race up and down the narrow lanes, revving engines and disrupting entire neighborhoods. One resident commented that it seems like the riders think the area is their playground, making noise all night and then scattering and returning as soon as police leave.

Even when checkpoints are established, some groups use messaging apps to warn each other, often abandoning their bikes temporarily and walking around until the coast is clear. Locals are calling for stronger and more permanent enforcement to restore peace to the community.

References

www.pattayamail.com

Categories
Asia Noise News Home Noise Disturbance

A Singaporean man is confused when his neighbor claims that his family is all asleep by 1am and accuses them of making loud noises

SINGAPORE: After his downstairs neighbor accused his family of making loud noises in the middle of the night, despite the fact that everyone in the house is asleep by then, a man took to social media to seek assistance.

He revealed in a post on Reddit’s Ask Singapore forum on Wednesday, July 9, that his mother has been harassed by her neighbor for weeks over inexplicable noises she hears between 1 and 3 in the morning.

But he clarified that it isn’t feasible because his family all goes to bed early because they all have to get up for work at five or six in the morning.

Her hearing our footsteps when we use the restroom while partially awake is the only plausible explanation. However, given that we are moving around the house all day, why does the noise only start between one and three in the morning?” he wrote.

He went on to say that the neighbor had just sent him a voice recording of the alleged noise, and to his amazement, he could actually hear knocking noises at night.

He claimed that there were actual knocking sounds. Now, she’s proposing to visit my house in the middle of the night to find out what’s making the noise! Although I think this is absurd, I can somewhat relate because the sounds were similar to “bom bom bom.”

He posed the question, seeking guidance from the online community: “What’s going on, and what can we do? Since we all work extremely early shifts (think 5–6 a.m. every day), I find it awkward that she is coming over, and I find it strange that a stranger would suggest it. I would appreciate any assistance! Thank you all!

“No need to accommodate her.”

Several users attempted to explain the possible source of the noise in the comments.

“That is the sound of the water pipes and rebar expanding and contracting in the concrete,” one person said.

“It might not be your unit,” said another commenter. Your neighbors or even the apartments above yours might be the culprits. A solid medium is used to carry sound. It’s not necessarily directly above just because it’s very loud. Encourage someone in your apartment to remain up until that point and determine if you can hear it as well.

Others, meanwhile, told the man that if he was uncomfortable with the neighbor, he should not let him into his house.

One said, “There’s no need to make room for her; she can lend you some recording equipment if she wants to and you’re willing.” Otherwise, as long as she doesn’t bother you, she is free to stand outside your house for as long as she likes. Most likely, it’s just plumbing.

“Is this neighbor a house inspector?” said another. Otherwise, they stay over and are unable to do much. Simply decline emphatically and refer them to HDB.

In other news, a local worker asked on Reddit if it is typical for entry-level positions or internships in Singapore to provide little to no training.

The man, who shared his experience on the r/askSingapore forum, claimed that he was expected to learn everything on his own and was given a heavy workload right away during his first week of work.

References

www.theindependent.sg

Categories
Noise-th

In Chonburi, a motorcycle noise dispute turns violent and results in shootings

In Chonburi, a motorcycle noise dispute turns violent and results in shootings
In Chonburi, a motorcycle noise dispute turns violent and results in shootings

One man was hospitalized with a gunshot wound after a violent altercation and shooting broke out in Chonburi over a disagreement over the loud noise of a revving motorbike.

Tensions between two groups erupted in Soi Malaithong, Na Pa subdistrict, in the Mueang district of Chonburi, following claims of deliberate provocation. It started when a man named Oat was testing out a customized motorcycle close to a store. Ter, the shop owner, became enraged when the bike’s high torque caused it to rev loudly and perform a wheelie. He thought Oat was trying to provoke him on purpose.

In retaliation, Ter and five other men visited Oat’s relative Hut’s house and demanded an explanation. The violent attack on Hut and Oat was caught on CCTV, with Ter breaking Hut’s head with a dustpan. Oat begged for a calm discussion, but the attackers persisted in their attack.

The situation allegedly worsened after Ter sent derogatory messages about Hut’s father, Jeab, following the attack. In retaliation, Jeab went to Ter’s shop with Hut and Oat to confront him. Ter allegedly pulled out a gun, chambered a round, and pointed it at Jeab during the ensuing argument. He struggled when Jeab tried to disarm him. Then, as Jeab was still struggling with him, Ter fired another warning shot into the air, striking Jeab. He had to be admitted to the hospital due to severe injuries sustained when the bullet went straight through his body.

Ms. Chulaporn, Jeab’s sister, has demanded justice, claiming that her nephew was merely testing the motorcycle and did not purposefully rev it. She described the argument as a miscommunication that had been exaggerated and refuted assertions that it was the result of an old-fashioned rivalry.

What would have happened if someone had died? Money couldn’t compensate for it. Concerned for her family’s safety, she stated, “I would demand the same in return if my brother had been killed.”

By examining CCTV footage and witness accounts, police are looking into the incident. In order to decide on suitable charges and stop additional violence, authorities are working. Jeab is still in the hospital getting better from his gunshot wound.

References

www.aseannow.com

Categories
Environment Noise Disturbance

There are ways to both preserve wildlife in the Everest region and not to disrupt high-end tourism

There are ways to both preserve wildlife in the Everest region and not to disrupt high-end tourism
There are ways to both preserve wildlife in the Everest region and not to disrupt high-end tourism

One of Nepal’s main tourist destinations, the Everest region, welcomes thousands of trekkers, mountaineers, and upscale (luxury) travelers each year. As popular as trekking and mountain climbing, helicopter sightseeing offers visitors who are prepared to shell out a lot of money to get a close-up look at the world’s tallest mountain, Mount Everest. The nation’s economy as a whole, local companies, hotels, and airlines all gain a great deal from these sightseeing excursions. However, the Sagarmatha National Park has made the decision to outright prohibit helicopter sightseeing tours in the area as of January 1, 2025. Stakeholders are engaged in a heated discussion as a result.

There is a darker side to this ostensibly profitable tourism practice. Although they help with tourism in the national park and its environs, helicopters are bad for the wild animals that live in the comparatively untouched parts of the park. During the busiest travel seasons, spring and fall, there are more than 6,000 helicopter flights in the Everest region, according to official data. These flights disturb the feeding and breeding habits of the wildlife and contribute to excessive noise pollution. The Himalayan Goral and Tahr are especially vulnerable to low-flying helicopters. The sudden, loud noises of the choppers are causing some animals to jump off the cliffs and die, according to park sources. Others are escaping their native areas and wandering into neighboring villages, where they cause problems for the local population.

Therefore, it makes sense that the park is concerned about wildlife. The rarest animals in the world, such as red pandas and snow leopards, can be found there. It is impossible to ignore the importance of protecting these creatures since it supports wildlife tourism and preserves biodiversity. Park officials claim that they took this action for additional reasons, such as the accidental landing of the helicopters and their suspicion that wildlife contraband was being transported. However, given that it will impact tourism in the area, the sudden and capricious way the ban was implemented is worrisome. The ban, which was imposed without consultation or consideration of other options, has drawn criticism from tour operators, helicopter companies, and the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal, the nation’s civil aviation regulator. Additionally, the CAAN has made it clear that the park lacks the legal authority to impose such a ban.

Nepal’s tourism industry is still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. The European Union’s extension of its ban on Nepali airlines has made matters worse. Business owners who have made tourism-related investments continue to lose a lot of money. High-end tourism offerings, such as helicopter sightseeing, could save the struggling industry at this point. Therefore, instead of placing blame on one another, the park and civil aviation authorities ought to look for areas of agreement and choose a more impartial strategy.

Establishing designated flight corridors away from conservation areas or sensitive wildlife habitats may be a workable way to reduce noise pollution, as experts have recommended. Monitoring efforts in the area should be stepped up, and the aviation watchdog should hold the operators responsible if the national park authority’s worries about illegal trafficking and unplanned landings are sincere. Our economy depends heavily on both wildlife and tourism, so a delicate balance between the two must be maintained. We think that they can coexist if a little more consideration is given.

References

asianews.network

Categories
Environment Noise Disturbance Noise Pollution

Religious authorities will examine complaints about loudspeaker noise at the mosque in KL

Religious authorities will examine complaints about loudspeaker noise at the mosque in KL
Religious authorities will examine complaints about loudspeaker noise at the mosque in KL

Dec. 8, Kuala Nerus — A mosque in the capital city has been accused of using loudspeakers at excessive volumes during religious lectures, allegedly disturbing the peace in the area. The complaints will be examined by the relevant religious authorities.

Dr. Zulkifli Hasan, the deputy minister in the prime minister’s department of religious affairs, said he was confident that the authorities could manage the situation and promised the ministry’s assistance if necessary.

“A suitable framework is in place, and the religious authorities have jurisdiction over this issue. We will deal with any problems as they come up,” he stated.

Anything that disturbs the peace is not what we want. Insha’Allah, we’ll manage this sensibly and make sure the community doesn’t experience any discomfort. He declared during the Madani Prihatin program, which included a group cleanup of Sekolah Rendah Islam Al-Amin today, that “investigations and reviews will be conducted.”

Zulkifli was reacting to a widely shared social media complaint regarding a Kuala Lumpur mosque that was allegedly making the locals uncomfortable by using loud speakers during religious lectures.

In order to preserve peace in the community, he also counseled all religious organizations to be aware of local sensitivities, including the effect of their operations.

Additionally, he emphasized that 14 religious affairs organizations, including the Skuad Musa’adah Al-Falah Madani, and about 10,000 registered volunteers from the Islamic Dakwah Foundation Malaysia (YADIM) have been mobilized to provide post-flood relief efforts across the country. — Bernama

References

www.malaymail.com

USAThailandMalaysiaIndiaIndonesiaVietnamPhilippines