Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
From Our Readers
Legalising factories beside houses not global standard

Announcing that the Penang government will continue to function normally (despite not being a Pakatan Rakyat government any longer), with a focus on improving public services in accordance with the principles of Competency, Accountability and Transparency (CAT), the chief minister of Penang went on to assure Penangites that “at the same time, we will also carry out the transformation in moving towards becoming a state with international standards - smart, clean, green, healthy and safe.” ( The Sun , July 3)

The chief minister is so passionate about developing Penang to meet international standards of living and that his administration will carry out its functions “in accordance with the principles of CAT”. This should make Penangites happy.

It is therefore strange that the State Planning Committee (SPC) which he chairs had directed the local planning authority to legalise some illegal factories that had started operating in shophouses in a residential zone. This directive effectively stopped the enforcement action that was under way against them by the Town and Country Planning Department (TCPD).

It boggles the mind why the SPC feels it is conscionable as to legalise industries in residential zones and why it thinks this is the right direction to develop the state to international standards. In which developed countries can factories be found operating beside occupied houses in residential zones?

Back in the 90s, intending house-buyers had checked the zoning of an upcoming residential project called Desa Jelita and confirmed with the Town and Country Planning Department that it was clearly located in a residential zone. They put their life savings in, confident that they would enjoy their stay and retirement in a quiet neighbourhood as the law prohibits any industrial activities in residential zones.

A few years later factories were illegally set up in the shophouses that are separated from the residences by just a back-lane.

A complaint was made and the relevant department started the process of taking legal action. Suddenly the action stopped on the excuse that enforcement officers could not gain access into the factories to take pictures and gather evidence for prosecution, and without solid evidence the case could not be taken to court. Does the law prohibit them entering unless the operators voluntarily allow them access? Would evidence obtained by forced entry be invalid?

Then there was silence and the assistance of the Public Complaints Bureau was sought. It got information from the authorities that the shop-houses had been re-zoned as ‘industrial’.

To further enquiries, the authorities justified their re-zoning action by citing that the SPC is empowered to give directions to the Planning Authority and the latter must carry out those instructions as the Local Plans for Penang have not been gazetted.

This casts grave doubts on the honesty of the statement about difficulty of getting access into the illegal factories to get solid evidence. Was this ruse created by the planning authority as it had no choice but to carry out the SPC’s directive even if it disagreed with it since enforcement action was already under way against the illegal factories and it had to stop that?

The law clearly states that industrial activities are prohibited in residential zones. How do these goings-on measure up to the CAT policy?

A hindrance to industrial development?

This is like saying that the law (the Town and Country Planning Act 1976) which prohibits industries operating in residential zones is a hindrance to the industrial development of Penang.

Can the affected residents be blamed if they feel that they are being discriminated against by the state government since they pay the same rates and taxes but do not have the same right to a residential zone free from any form of industrial activities as provided by law, as residents in other residential zones have?   

The picture painted is that instructions were given by the SPC to the planning authority to convert the zoning of these shop-houses from residential to industrial, and the civil servants in the said department had no choice but to comply with the instructions.

How far is this true as such instructions are not in line with the chief minister’s vision of developing Penang to international living standards, and it seems far fetched that the CM, with a clear conscience, could have directed illegal industries in a residential zone to be legalised by re-zoning.

Did the exco member for industrial development push for the illegal factories in the shophouses in the residential zone to be legalised by converting their zoning from residential to industrial as a means of encouraging or boosting industrial development of Penang?

Did the exco member for town & country planning and housing feel that legalising factories in residential zones by re-zoning conforms to the CM’s vision of developing Penang to international standards and is the right direction towards making Penang smart, clean, green, healthy and safe?

Did the exco member for environment support this despite the fact that there must be an adequate buffer zone between residential zones and industrial activities so that pollution from factories does not lower the quality of life of the people in the residential zones?

Did the exco member for health also support the conversion despite the fact that pollution affects people’s health - e.g. metal cutting and grinding activities in the factories produce not only noise and other disturbances but also acrid, toxic fumes that are carried by the wind into nearby houses even when doors and windows are closed and which people are forced to breathe?

The SPC has set a precedent that goes against the vision of the chief minister to enhance the quality of life in Penang. Once a precedent is set, it opens the way for more illegal factories to be set up in residential zones as the authorities will have to follow the precedent and convert the affected residential premises into industrial.

The right way forward?

Is this the right way forward for the industrial development of Penang, or for developing Penang to international standards, or for making Penang smart, clean, green, healthy and safe?      

It therefore behoves the chief minister, in compliance with the state’s CAT policy:

1) To lay bare the grounds on which the SPC thought it fit to instruct the planning authority to legalise the illegal factories in the residential zone by re-zoning the shophouses from ‘residential/ commercial” to “industrial’?

2) To justify why the original status of the shophouses as ‘residential/commercial’ should not be restored and action taken to remove the illegal factories operating in them?

3) To opine whether in state administration matters the adage “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” is irrelevant so long as it is somebody else that is required to pay the price of development and not the decision-makers.      

 

ADS