Tahniah kepada pelantikan baharu YDP MPKlang, Noraini Roslan, bekas Datuk Bandar Subang Jaya yang telah menjalankan tugas dengan cemerlang semasa berkhidmat di MBSJ.
Semoga beliau dapat merajui MPKlang ke tahap yang lebih baik lagi. Harapan kita ialah beliau dapat menyemarakkan lagi semangat Keluarga Malaysia, kesaksamaan dan kesejahteraan masyarakat di bawah MPKlang.
Diharap MPKlang dapat bertindak dengan tegas ke atas skim-skim kawalan tidak formal di taman-taman perumahan (bukan persendirian) yang tidak mengikuti garis panduan ataupun yang melanggari undang-undang.
Kelulusan untuk skim-skim berpagar bukan formal di taman-taman perumahan bukan swasta sepatutnya tidak diberikan dengan sewenang-wenangnya. Diharap beliau tidak dipengaruhi oleh mana-mana pihak seperti pihak persatuan penduduk ataupun sindiket yang ingin mendapatkan kelulusan untuk skim kawalan mereka.
Mana-mana pihak persatuan penduduk yang tidak memperolehi persetujuan penduduk tulen 100% tidak boleh diberikan kelulusan untuk kegunaan kad akses automatik. Dan pihak RA yang melaksanakan kad akses tanpa memenuhi syarat ini mestilah diambil tindakan dengan tegas. (Untuk maklumat anda, semua komuniti berpagar yang formal juga mempunyai 100% persetujuan penduduk)
Pengawal keselamatan yang meminta kad pengenalan pihak awam atau menghalang kenderaan penghuni patut diambil tindakan juga.
Sudah tiba masanya kedaulatan undang-undang diambil dengan serius...
----<<<>>>----
Aduan Rakyat (Surat Terbuka):
Seruan kepada pihak berkuasa tempatan khususnya MPKlang, JPBD Selangor dan LPHS,
Perkara: Masalah Penduduk dan Komuniti Di Kawasan MPKlang (Bandar Bukit Raja: Semua Taman Perumahan Sekitar Jalan Singgahsana dan Jalan Mahligai)
Kepada YDP Presiden MPKlang yg dihormati,
Ini adalah seruan kita sebagai komuniti setempat kepada pihak berkuasa kerajaan Negeri Selangor khususnya PBT untuk mengambil tindakan sewajarnya ke atas pemajuan skim-skim komuniti berpagar yang sedang/telah dijalankan tanpa permohonan kebenaran di peringkat perancangan pemajuan ataupun yang telah dijalankan dengan cara lain.
Pihak pemaju ketika itu Sime Darby Property telahpun mengesahkan bahawa projek-projek perumahan teres 2-tingkat di sekitar kawasan tersebut bukanlah suatu kawasan pemajuan 'Gated Community'. Jadi kita sebagai pemilik rumah sah tidak terbeli rumah jenis 'gated community'.
Namun selepas satu tempoh masa, semua fasa taman perumahan di sini telah bertukar kepada taman perumahan Gated Community atau telah menjalankan skim komuniti berpagar. Akibatnya, pelbagai masalah timbul yang telah membebankan dan menyusahkan penduduk.
Kita terpaksa membayar yuran bulanan yang tinggi untuk mendapatkan kad akses supaya tidak disusahkan pergerakan kita untuk keluar masuk kediaman. Ramai yang akur untuk menyertai skim mereka kerana tidak mahu famili mereka diganggu walaupun terpaksa dibebani dengan kos sara hidup bertambahan.
Masalah yang dihadapi penduduk di sini bertambah runcing apabila pihak RA yang tidak bertanggung jawab bukan sahaja telah melaksanakan sistem kad akses, mereka juga telah mengarahkan pengawal keselamatan mereka untuk meminta kad pengenalan orang ramai yang tidak menyertai skim berpagar mereka.
Ini adalah kediaman harta awam - kita sebagai rakyat yang membayar cukai berhak menggunakan jalanraya awam di sini pada bila-bila masa. Tetapi semua pihak RA di sini telah melaksanakan skim komuniti berpagar mereka seolah-olah seluruh kawasan ini adalah kawasan harta persendirian.
Selain daripada menghalang jalanraya awam, mereka juga telah membina penghalang /pagar haram di kawasan-kawasan tertentu yang menghubungkan taman kanak-kanak dan rekreasi lain seperti gelanggang bola keranjang dan sebagainya.
Malangnya fasiliti awam ini tidak dapat lagi digunakan oleh penduduk dan komuniti sekitar kerana pintu aksesnya telah dikunci. Hanya segelintir penduduk yang boleh menikmati kemudahan-kemudahan tersebut. Mananya hak saksama dan hak kita?
Pintu pagar kecil yang dikunci juga menyebabkan anak-anak kecil yang ingin ke sekolah tidak dapat menggunakan jalan pintas tersebut. Yang pelik dan tidak adil ialah, hanya golongan tertentu sahaja yang boleh menggunakannya sebab mereka mempunyai kunci mangganya.
Mananya hak saksama dan hak kita semua? Skim berpagar di sini telah menimbulkan banyak sengketa dan pertikaian di antara penduduk dan telah menjejaskan keharmonian dan kesejahteraan komuniti.
Ini bukan harta persendirian. Kenapa taman perumahan di kawasan pengelolaan MPKlang boleh menjadi sedemikian? Banyak akta di bawah Akta Perancangan Bandar dan Desa 1976 telahpun dilanggari. PBT kena semak semula akta-akta tersebut samada pemajuan ini dijalankan mengikut kaedah-kaedah dan saluran yang betul atau tidak.
Rasanya semua fasa taman perumahan di sekitar kawasan tersebut telah menjalankan pemajuan skim komuniti berpagar tanpa permohonan, kebenaran atau kelulusan yang mengikuti kaedah-kaedah ataupun saluran yang betul.
Harapan kita ialah Tuan Yang Di Pertua Presiden MPKlang menyiasat dan mengambil tindakan-tindakan yang sewajarnya kerana ini adalah masalah yang amat serius. Kita tidak boleh lagi membiarkan mereka bermaharajalela dan menjalankan aktiviti mereka sesuka hati tanpa peduli ke atas kedaulatan undang-undang.
Kerajaan tolong hapuskan wabak GnG haram yang berleluasa ini dengan kejujuran dan ketekunan.
Sekian, terima kasih
**********
RAs can also start Kawasan Rukun Tetangga KRT instead of GnG if they are sincere...
Residents, please do not condone to any form of illegal gated community scheme or wrong doings by corrupt RAs.
For the many, not the few...
The Silent Majority
Untuk membuat aduan, sila hubungi nombor telefon atau email di bawah:
************
Many RAs are flouting guidelines illegally blocking roads, asking people for IC, using access card system, etc.
Public roads blocked, boom gates installed, communities inconvenienced from moving in and out, "security guards" asking to check people's identification such as MyKad or driving license. Some even have implemented the prohibited proximity / access card system without the proper consent and approval, etc... Even though the above are all illegal, yet the corrupt RAs still implemented them...
*************
Do not allow corrupt RAs to operate or implement illegal or informal "GnG" schemes as they wish... Do not allow them to bully the residents and the communities. Make sure the RAs do not flout the laws and the guidelines.
Say no to informal gated and guarded housing schemes in your neighbourhood. Instead introduce Kawasan Rukun Tetangga (KRT) as endorsed and promoted by the government.
Many RAs have been blatantly flouting the laws implementing "formal gated community" schemes on their own even though they are only "informal gated communities". Are these RAs corrupt or are they incapable of following the rule of law? Do you think that RA is about neighborhood security and do you think they can really put a stop to crime? Or perhaps they have their personal agenda and are just opportunistic?
Not sure if the RAs have the proper and official approvals from the authorities. Or perhaps they did not get the necessary approvals at all for the type of scheme that they wanted to implement. Most of the time the requirements are not met. Some of the RAs went ahead to implement GC schemes despite only obtaining approval for a GN scheme or an informal GC scheme only. Some don't even know what scheme they can or cannot implement.
They have no regard for the laws or guidelines. They will just implement what they want according to their interpretation of the scheme. Some are bullies and some are linked to syndicates and gangsters. Whatever it is do not trust them so easily and do not sign any papers to give them any type of consent.
They will sweet talk you initially but they will start to coerce others later when they have sufficient numbers. You might be giving them the license to collect money from the neighborhood. They will make it "inconvenient" for you and your family /friends if you don't participate in their scheme. Many residents did not know what they were getting into initially when they sign the consent letters... only to regret later on. It's high time the communities and the authorities put a stop to this.
************
Court rules against RA as public road is not private property
The Courts and Municipal Councils must always protect the Rakyat living in normal non-private residences (eg: terrace houses) from corrupt RAs that are operating 'GnG scheme'.
Illegal GnG schemes are divisive and a hindrance in today's society. It is also not in line with the National Unity Blueprint and it hinders the Keluarga Malaysia aspirations.
RAs operating 'GnG scheme' in residential areas that are under the purview of local council must be taken to task for not following the council's guidelines and at the same time breaking multiple laws (eg: blocking public roads, using prohibited access card system, guards asking people for IC).
For those RAs that are taking the laws into their hands, not following guidelines and bullying the community, all approvals earlier given by the respective council must be revoked immediately. It is time all councils get serious and put a stop to this nonsense.
Let us promote equality, unity and a more harmonious neighbourhood..
For the many not the few!
**********
The pros and cons of gated living
Why do people really go for such a scheme, and what can be regarded the "best model?
British law lecturer Sarah Blandy of the University of Leeds in England knows all about gated communities (GC) and their impact on our social fabric.
Ask her for an introduction to it, and she'll most likely refer to her paper titled "National Study on Gated Communities" that considers their physical as well as legal attributes.
In it, she says that such a community must be one that:
Has a fence or wall around the residential area;
Restricts or controls the access for non-residents (via electronic means or with security staff);
Has private internal roads;
Subject residents to a common code of conduct; and
Can manage itself.
Blandy drew her working definition from a survey of a number of planning authorities in the United Kingdom and through interviews with key national players, including officers of residents' management companies, local authorities and the police, besides neighbours or those living outside a GC.
Her study reveals that in the UK, GCs are mainly small in size (containing less than 50 dwellings) and are mostly located in the suburbs of town and cities.
Deeper into her work, things get more interesting with some of her discoveries taking me by surprise. Among them, her finding that contrary to general belief, "the major motivation" for purchasers opting for a GC scheme in the UK is not security but status.
Other nuggets she uncovered that contrast with some popular theories is that in the UK
The GC market is "driven by developers seeking price premium", rather than by "purchasers demanding for safety"; and
There is no conclusive evidence that the enclosed nature of a GC or sell-management by residents actually fosters or encourages a "sense of community".
On balance, Blandy believes GCs do more harm than good, because:
They reduce public space and the permeability of a city:
Their physical security measures leads to "further social divisions";
Putting affluent households behind walls produces a negative impact on poorer neighbourhoods - in terms of urban sustainability, security and social integration.
While GC advocates maintain that such developments do in fact "contribute to improved community safety", academicians and policy makers maintain that they have "side-stepped conventional forms of governance, both in terms of planning control and in the provision of services".
"The likelihood of civic disengagement by GC residents is real and should not be summarily dismissed," they say, adding that if such disengagements remain unchecked, segregation can deepen, if not by race, then certainly by social class.
In the United States, some quarters also think GCs are potential threats to local fiscal autonomy because GC residents "have to pay additional charges for the privatised services rendered within their community". such as security, street maintenance as well as recreation and entertainment upkeep.
"Since their GC makes them pay for these same services that the government is obliged to provide, they feel they should be exempted - if not completely, then partially - from statutory charges," claim the detractors.
Further fuelling argument for payment exemption to the local authorities is a lack of clear policies on GCs in the US that is further compounded by the "general ambiguity of planners" towards them.
Coupled with the absence of local and national guidelines, this has led to an undesirable state of affairs, described as "policy vacuum" (Editor's note: In Malaysia, this has been addressed by recent amendments to the Strata Titles Act 1985).
On our shores, local GC developers too say that management corporations provide the same, if not better, kind of service as the local authorities for which the residents have to make additional payment.
However, they stopped short of suggesting that this means residents should be discharged of their obligation to pay their statutory charges.
Since January this year, I have been very fortunate in being able to inspect various GC schemes around our country together with a team of senior officials from the Office of the Director-General of Land and Mines.
One of this team's principal objectives is to determine the main characteristics of a GC and draw up the criteria for the "best model" scheme.
Accompanied by representatives from the Real Estate and Housing Developers' Association of Rehda, among the first projects we visited were Desa Park City and Sierramas Resort Homes in the Klang Valley.
While these two projects are different in many aspects, they are both impressive and pricey - certainly, they are beyond the reach of average Malaysian house buyers.
Desa Park City has visibly aged over time, but nevertheless, I was impressed by its many attractive features, especially its public park and commercial centre that permit unrestricted access (only the residential precincts are completely gated).
For Sierramas, the latter still appears refreshingly new. However, it is a large CF with public access virtually denied unless a visitor is invited or has a legitimate reason to be there.
After the Klang Valley, the next two places the ministry officials and I toured were Taman Tambun Indah in mainland Penang and Casa Grande on the island. The former is a massive GC comprising over 300 bungalow plots while the latter is pint-sized by comparison, with only 24 units.
Thereafter, we hopped over to Sentosa Island in Singapore to see how our southern neighbour is developing Sentosa Cove, a GC being built on reclaimed land.
On hand to give us a warm welcome was its chief executive officer Gurjit Singh, who gave us a comprehensive picture of how the development was conceived, planned and being executed.
Another scheme I saw was in Sabah, where I was taken on tour of several GCs in the state capital of Kota Kinabalu, including the famous Sutera Harbour.
Deep within this project is a gated enclave known as "The Residency". Though still in its infancy, its average size bungalow plots are being steadily snapped up by West Malaysians despite price tags of over RM1 million.
At this stage, it's still too early to spell out all the various components that can make up the best GC model. Many questions remain unanswered and many issues are still unresolved.
But, nevertheless, are we moving in the right direction insofar as gated living is concerned?
Salleh Buang is a senior advisor of a company specialising in competitive intelligence. He is also active in training and public speaking and can be reached at sallehbuang@hotmail.com
Source:
https://www.hba.org.my/main.htm
21/04/2007
NST- PROP Land Matters
by Salleh Buang
British law lecturer Sarah Blandy of the University of Leeds in England knows all about gated communities (GC) and their impact on our social fabric.
Ask her for an introduction to it, and she'll most likely refer to her paper titled "National Study on Gated Communities" that considers their physical as well as legal attributes.
In it, she says that such a community must be one that:
Has a fence or wall around the residential area;
Restricts or controls the access for non-residents (via electronic means or with security staff);
Has private internal roads;
Subject residents to a common code of conduct; and
Can manage itself.
Blandy drew her working definition from a survey of a number of planning authorities in the United Kingdom and through interviews with key national players, including officers of residents' management companies, local authorities and the police, besides neighbours or those living outside a GC.
Her study reveals that in the UK, GCs are mainly small in size (containing less than 50 dwellings) and are mostly located in the suburbs of town and cities.
Deeper into her work, things get more interesting with some of her discoveries taking me by surprise. Among them, her finding that contrary to general belief, "the major motivation" for purchasers opting for a GC scheme in the UK is not security but status.
Other nuggets she uncovered that contrast with some popular theories is that in the UK
The GC market is "driven by developers seeking price premium", rather than by "purchasers demanding for safety"; and
There is no conclusive evidence that the enclosed nature of a GC or sell-management by residents actually fosters or encourages a "sense of community".
On balance, Blandy believes GCs do more harm than good, because:
They reduce public space and the permeability of a city:
Their physical security measures leads to "further social divisions";
Putting affluent households behind walls produces a negative impact on poorer neighbourhoods - in terms of urban sustainability, security and social integration.
While GC advocates maintain that such developments do in fact "contribute to improved community safety", academicians and policy makers maintain that they have "side-stepped conventional forms of governance, both in terms of planning control and in the provision of services".
"The likelihood of civic disengagement by GC residents is real and should not be summarily dismissed," they say, adding that if such disengagements remain unchecked, segregation can deepen, if not by race, then certainly by social class.
In the United States, some quarters also think GCs are potential threats to local fiscal autonomy because GC residents "have to pay additional charges for the privatised services rendered within their community". such as security, street maintenance as well as recreation and entertainment upkeep.
"Since their GC makes them pay for these same services that the government is obliged to provide, they feel they should be exempted - if not completely, then partially - from statutory charges," claim the detractors.
Further fuelling argument for payment exemption to the local authorities is a lack of clear policies on GCs in the US that is further compounded by the "general ambiguity of planners" towards them.
Coupled with the absence of local and national guidelines, this has led to an undesirable state of affairs, described as "policy vacuum" (Editor's note: In Malaysia, this has been addressed by recent amendments to the Strata Titles Act 1985).
On our shores, local GC developers too say that management corporations provide the same, if not better, kind of service as the local authorities for which the residents have to make additional payment.
However, they stopped short of suggesting that this means residents should be discharged of their obligation to pay their statutory charges.
Since January this year, I have been very fortunate in being able to inspect various GC schemes around our country together with a team of senior officials from the Office of the Director-General of Land and Mines.
One of this team's principal objectives is to determine the main characteristics of a GC and draw up the criteria for the "best model" scheme.
Accompanied by representatives from the Real Estate and Housing Developers' Association of Rehda, among the first projects we visited were Desa Park City and Sierramas Resort Homes in the Klang Valley.
While these two projects are different in many aspects, they are both impressive and pricey - certainly, they are beyond the reach of average Malaysian house buyers.
Desa Park City has visibly aged over time, but nevertheless, I was impressed by its many attractive features, especially its public park and commercial centre that permit unrestricted access (only the residential precincts are completely gated).
For Sierramas, the latter still appears refreshingly new. However, it is a large CF with public access virtually denied unless a visitor is invited or has a legitimate reason to be there.
After the Klang Valley, the next two places the ministry officials and I toured were Taman Tambun Indah in mainland Penang and Casa Grande on the island. The former is a massive GC comprising over 300 bungalow plots while the latter is pint-sized by comparison, with only 24 units.
Thereafter, we hopped over to Sentosa Island in Singapore to see how our southern neighbour is developing Sentosa Cove, a GC being built on reclaimed land.
On hand to give us a warm welcome was its chief executive officer Gurjit Singh, who gave us a comprehensive picture of how the development was conceived, planned and being executed.
Another scheme I saw was in Sabah, where I was taken on tour of several GCs in the state capital of Kota Kinabalu, including the famous Sutera Harbour.
Deep within this project is a gated enclave known as "The Residency". Though still in its infancy, its average size bungalow plots are being steadily snapped up by West Malaysians despite price tags of over RM1 million.
At this stage, it's still too early to spell out all the various components that can make up the best GC model. Many questions remain unanswered and many issues are still unresolved.
But, nevertheless, are we moving in the right direction insofar as gated living is concerned?
Salleh Buang is a senior advisor of a company specialising in competitive intelligence. He is also active in training and public speaking and can be reached at sallehbuang@hotmail.com
Source:
https://www.hba.org.my/main.htm
21/04/2007
NST- PROP Land Matters
by Salleh Buang
