Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
From Our Readers

I was asked recently after typing about how local councils should buck up on regulations to avoid legacy issues ; what about when the squatters extort developers?

The idea of such a turnaround thing happening piqued my interest a bit, since we are seeing many upcoming developments around the Greater Klang Valley.

As such, I asked around if any of this was happening. After all, being a former business writer has its perks in terms of having at least some contacts still willing to talk.

And talk they did, under condition of anonymity.

From the building of luxury apartments, large-scale mass transportation projects and even that of shopping malls, there seems to be a pattern of alleged extortion and blackmail by not just residents and non-government organisations, but even that of politicians and civil servants.

Of course there are some demands that are legit, especially if people have been living on ‘borrowed land’, so to speak. A payment for compensation is valid for the trouble of having to move off the land but whether that is the task of the developer or the local council that sold off the land is another story.

However, most developers choose to avoid a tussle and offer a token for most squatters to move out, which can be between RM30,000 to even RM75,000 in some past cases. One developer even says they had to go as high as RM100,000.

Another developer lamented how building a mixed development led to a compensation over loss of business tussle with a chicken rice shop owner and its customers.

However, when do developers say enough is enough? When does it reach a ridiculous high to the point when we say it is, in fact, extortion?

Even the likes of those involved in large infrastructural projects that chose a ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ strategy, do sometimes face inflated demands.

Other developers even get demands from squatters asking for full compensation for the value of land which was not theirs. In one instance, the illegal land occupier who apparently had no money to move on could hire a real estate valuer who valued the land at an exorbitant value and asked for said amount to vacate the premises.

Premises he illegally built on land, which he does not own, in case anyone is wondering.

Another developer is facing even a better extortionist community in the form of a coalition of local resident associations. Among the demands were to sell several units of high-valued apartments to the blind at a third of the price per square foot. In addition, the local community also asked for an additional number of apartment units for also at a third of the price per square foot. It gets better.

The developer must also build a community hall complete with parking lots to be managed and rented out at will by the local communities to profit from.

Apparent ‘win-win’ situation?

Because, you know, not only is the developer building up land which does not even belong to any of community members, nor are the community member associations being represented by those residing in the area. Yet, somehow, developers are given such tasks to handle, out of an apparent ‘win-win’ situation.

This is not a so-called win-win situation, folks, it is downright profiteering and extortion.

As such, would any side actually suggest legislation or even provide an avenue for developers to bring this issue as a criminal charge?

Perhaps the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) would like to take a swing at this issue. Of course, we already have laws regarding slander, libel, blackmail and racketeering, but where is the platform for developers and even business owners to take action against those who do so?

We all understand that land is a precious and limited commodity. We also understand that there are those willing to spread gossip about business owners simply because there is no filter in their heads to consider the truthfulness about such accusations before spreading them.

However, if the Malaysian government insist on being pro-business, it needs to ensure that regulation and legislation, as well as enforcement, is in place to ensure that nothing slows down progress and also distort the images of companies simply doing business.

Yes, we must show compassion and include the community in future developments, especially if we speak of sustainable communities. However, sustainability does not mean that developers must kowtow and do everything a community’s so-called ‘rider’ list akin to divas and divos.

Sustainable communities through local agendas mean that both sides, the developer and the community find how best to contribute to one another. It is not through a list of demands, but through both thinking up the needs of the future generations of the community.

ADS