The clarification by the CEO of  Land Transport Commission Mohd Nur Kamal (Spad) is just another piece of double talk aimed at confusing the owners of 31 shoplots to be acquired by Spad along Jalan Sultan in the name of the MRT project.

According to Spad’s official explanation, the shoplots must be acquired compulsorily during construction of MRT; there is no alternative way of doing this.

After the completion of the MRT project, shoplots may be returned to original owners provided they file in the application to reclaim their properties. However, Spad said these shoplots may or may not be returned to the owners because there may be some other complications arising later on.

It is just like saying that everything is at the mercy of Spad later on; that the owners are at risk of losing their properties forever later on if they decide to agree now. So what is the point of agreeing now and risk being laid flat on the chopping board later on? Nobody in their right mind, for that matter the Spad CEO himself, would put down their signatures to such an idea.

The CEO has a lot of explaning to do but he misses the main point. There is no need to go into details of legal entanglements and technicalities over the ownership of these shoplots. The owners have stated their stand, and it it up to Spad to work out this “surrender now and reclaim later on” deal.

Spad should just focus on an acceptable formula instead of trying to tell the whole world that they are doing a very difficult job, so much so that public sympathy should belong to Spad and not with the shoplot owners.

Amidst so much double talk and uncertainties, Spad should not accuse shoplots owners of getting restless and jittery. These shoplots may be their one and only life belongings. Failure to reclaim these properties and walk away with some compensation, could be the most regretful thing in their life.

Spad may think otherwise because it is not their personal problem. Spad is armed with the National Land Code and stands a good chance of frustrating the shoplot owners demands in the court of  law. However is this the way of the “people first” government in dealing with public grievances?

Not withstanding all the complications and uncertainties later on, if the government sincerely cares for the shop owners, then they should put in place a  guarantee for the owner to subsequently reclaim their land. Anything less is not acceptable at all.

However the government is simply too big headed for laying down such a guarantee.