A lot has been said and published on gated and guarded communities recently. Some make sense while others do not. But what really surprised or even shocked me was this piece by our honourable member of Parliament and minister for housing and local government. He had supposedly said that to have such gated schemes approved, the community must achieve 100 percent support from the residents!

May I ask our honourable ninister, please cite me just one case where a decision requires a 100 percent agreement. Many cases of choice and election are based on the simple majority rule, while some require a two-thirds majority. The MCA elections are based on a simple majority. Even the Malaysian constitution, such an important institution, requires just a two-thirds majority for amendments to be effected.

I would like to challenge him to cite just one case where there is a 100 percent requirement. If he can’t, then he is not fit even to be an MP, let alone a minister. Such a mentality. I shudder when I think of such people being a leader of the Chinese community, one who does not seem to have basic commonsense.

This issue of gated communities should be looked at with all objectivity and need. In the first place, we would love to live in a carefree and encumbrance-free atmosphere, free from all forms of restrictions and encumbrances. If we can choose, we would like to have our houses free of grills, fences and gates. We would love to see our children running around parks and playgrounds without having to fix our watchful eyes on their security.

May I ask the honourable minister, ‘What do you advise when we can’t live peacefully, when our families and dear ones are being threatened day in and day out? We do not have personal security guards like you do.

It is just very simple – if the police fail to provide adequate security, then we have no choice but to take steps to safeguard our very own security, and the cheapest way is to safeguard the whole neighbourhood is to do it collectively.

Even with this collective effort, some members find it difficult financially as this is a long-term initiative, especially for pensioners and the like. Honourable minister, if you are wise and if you really represent us and care for our welfare, please provide us with a better solution rather than talk nonsense. In your case, I think it is the case of ‘we would not know how much you do not know if you do not open your mouth’.

By the same token, if the local authourities were to impose stricter and unreasonable conditions on such security schemes, then we strongly urge that these authorities provide us with viable and better solutions. You guys are supposed to work with and for us rather than against us.

You guys design better traffic flow, improve drainage, garbage collection, and many others – all these are meant to enhance our welfare and well-being. By the same token, give us a better solution to improve our security rather than just impose all sorts of unreasonable restrictions.

We pay taxes so that you have a job. Therefore you should work with us as well as work for us, not against us. If you can provide us with a better solution, we will be most happy to disband the scheme and tear down the boom-gates immediately. With rising living costs, none of us are happy to have to increase our living costs by having to pay for such security schemes.