Post date: Nov 03, 2010 12:52:24 AM
May 7, 02
Residents of Petaling Jaya are clearly not buying the explanation and justification the PJ municipal council (MPPJ) is offering on the controversial PJ1 local plan draft, especially when serious contradictions rule the day.
Total and partial objections to the draft plan, which attempts to transform PJ from a quiet suburb into a bustling township, continues to gain momentum, due largely to the inability of local councillors-cum-state assemblypersons and MPPJ officials to give straight answers.
For example, Sunday's briefing session for residents of Sections 17, 17A, 19 and parts of SS2 was in reality endless queries and complaints over land status, the draft plan.s rationale, gross inefficiency in the upkeep of existing facilities, the fear of a bigger population and mass relocation.
Many among the 300 residents who turned up at the Civic Centre auditorium left with more doubts over MPPJ.s rationale of seeking to alleviate traffic congestion and improve the quality of life, when the draft plan clearly shows that PJ will see an increase in population density, commercial activities and traffic flow.
As the session was the second-last in a series of 11 that ends next week, the briefing on the draft plan was pretty mundane, that is, until residents began queuing up at the microphones during the question-and-answer session.
Residents fire salvo
MPPJ president Emran Kadir and planning development director Sharifah Marhaini Syed Ali were both kept busy deflecting the salvos fired by residents whose questions showed that they knew exactly what they were talking about.
The two state assemblypersons . Dr Lim Thuang Seng (Bukit Gasing) and Lim Choon Kin (Damansara Utama) . should take the lead from these alert residents who fired away their questions point blank.
For instance, Emran, who was the former Petaling District Officer, was caught by a question of whether land fronting any road identified for widening will be taken away, thus eating into the compound of the houses.
He attempted to explain the proposal for using existing road reserves without touching people.s land, but residents were less than convinced.
However, Emran couldn.t respond when a resident of SS2 pointed out that the road-widening will sacrifice the grassy road-tables and trees planted by residents on their own initiative as part of the local community.s beautification project.
When she also pointed out that the roads will end up literally at the doorstep of the houses, Emran, who chaired the three-and-a-half-hour session, remained silent.
To a question on why the draft plan was priced at RM150 a set when each objection form must be attached with a copy of the area in question, Emran simply told the resident to buy if she can afford it, or share a set with other residents.
Divide and rule
Another resident asked Emran: .What is your vision of PJ? Does it concur with our vision of PJ? Your vision seems to be turning PJ into KL. We know that you (the MPPJ) are trying to divide and rule us, but we refuse to be divided and ruled..
However, the question went unanswered.
Another controversial area in question was Kampung Baru Damansara (known as Section 17A). A local community leader asked for clarification on the kind of development proposed for the new village and if landowners will be able to get their leases renewed.
Although Emran said all land issues were under the Land Office.s purview, he totally ignored the part of the question asking what the draft plan actually meant by .disorganised housing. in Kampung Baru Damansara.
Another resident, irked by the selective answers, decided that a little education will not hurt and explained that the British had developed the new village in an .orderly fashion. when they first moved the Chinese community from other areas during pre-Merdeka days. Thus Kampung Baru Damansara is not disorganised as claimed by MPPJ.
On whether the site where Ruby cinema now sits has been earmarked for development, Emran confirmed that it will be turned into a commercial complex-cum-wet market to house the existing illegal hawkers and wet market.
Squatter problems
When pointed out that some activities were already taking place on the site, MPPJ.s Sharifah Marhaini explained that the landowner has to first solve outstanding problems pertaining to the land before any development is allowed, which is Selangor state.s policy.
A resident asked if that meant there will be no development in certain earmarked locations in the PJ1 study area until the squatter problems are resolved, thus delaying the proposed projects for another few more years. The answer was yes.
As put by Ronnie Liu, DAP national publicity chief and Shadow MPPJ chairperson, the residents. concerns were apparent as seen from the specific questions asked and the clarifications sought.
.Emran was hard-pressed to answer the numerous queries while the two state assemblypersons present were surprisingly quiet and seemed detached throughout the entire meeting,.he said.
Meanwhile, a group of Section 1 residents has taken the matter to court where they are seeking to declare the PJ1 draft plan illegal.
The originating summons, filed by Jeyapalan Mahesan and 11,740 others at the Shah Alam High Court last Friday, named Emran as the sole defendant and gave him eight days to enter appearance.
Gazetted as residential area
In his supporting affidavit, Jeyapalan claimed that the Petaling and part of Klang District Structure Plan gazetted in 1996 provides for PJ to remain a residential area, has designated certain areas for commercial and industrial activities while the rest were earmarked for continued development.
He claimed that the 1996 structure plan instructs Emran to formulate a draft plan .to rectify all the problems created by the defendant in allowing ad hoc development..
Emran has been accused of having .ulterior motives of profit. in formulating the current draft plan with a view of .redeveloping and altering the land use of almost the entire PJ..
Jeyapalan accused the Petaling District Officer and Land Office of fraud for deliberately causing lease owners to surrender their leases and re-alienate the land at hefty premiums.
The residents also want the court to find .the combined, concurrent and tandem actions of the MPPJ and the Petaling land office. illegal and .a deliberate abuse of power..
Unfortunately for PJ residents, last Sunday.s briefing was no different from previous ones . they returned home with more empty promises.