The press statement by National Landscape Department or Jabatan Landskap Negara (JLN) dated Feb 5, 2016 is quoted verbatim:

“Putrajaya - Pendirian tegas Kerajaan untuk mengekalkan kawasan Bukit Kiara seluas 380 ekar sebagai kawasan hijau adalah kekal. Sebarang projek pembangunan di kawasan berkenaan adalah tidak dibenarkan.”

In June 2007, it was reported that the cabinet had agreed in principle to gazette 188.93 hectares (466.85 acres) of Bukit Kiara.

In 2011, Bukit Kiara Resort Berhad (plaintiff) made claims against the mayor of Kuala Lumpur (defendant), in regard to various declaratory and mandatory orders in relation to Lot No 52314 (62.5 acres).

Essentially, the plaintiff and defendant were disputing whether there was an oral agreement for a 70-year lease of Lot No 52314 in favor of Bukit Kiara Resort Berhad - and if affirmative on the plaintiff’s behalf, the government’s decision for Lot No 52314 to be made part of ‘Taman Awam Berskala Besar’ is subject to question.

In 2012, the High Court of Malaysia had ruled in favour of Bukit Kiara Resort Berhad (incidentally, the mayor of Kuala Lumpur did not appeal the High Court’s verdict), in relation to Lot 52314, which lies on the south-east of Bukit Kiara.

In light of the above, how does a to-be-gazetted acreage of 380 come about?

The calculation below assumes that Lot No 52314 is deducted from the original acreage proposed by the cabinet in 2007.

466.85 acres - 62.5 acres = 404.35 acres.

To the layman, it would seem that 24.35 acres has vanished into thin air.

Pertinent questions which require a transparent and elaborate response from JLN are:

1. Publicly clarify the acreage deviation from an original 466.85 acres to the proposed 380 acres.

a. Assuming the gazette is to exclude Lot No 52314, explain the subsequent missing 24.35 acreage?

i. Where is the land on a map?

ii. Why is the land excluded from the gazette?

iii. Who is the commercial entity owner of the land?

iv. Is the excluded land part of a land-swap deal with said entity - whereby a portion of the overall Lot acreage is turned over to the government but 24.35 acres remain in the custody of the entity?

v. If 24.35 acres remain in the custody of the entity, what is the duration of the lease/expiry and will there be any land title conversion?

vi. If the acreage is excluded ‘temporarily’, how will the acreage be amalgamated into the single Lot Title which JLN have been espousing over many years to the stakeholders?

Another 12-month extension being sought?

It is worth remembering, that in January 2014, Traks met with MP Abdul Rahman Dahlan and JLN representatives in Putrajaya where Traks were given positive assurances that the gazette paperwork was on the verge of being submitted and some headway would be made within the year of 2014.

Two years has since passed and JLN is essentially asking for another 12-month extension without providing any justification for the delay nor the reduced acreage - instead, it would seem that JLN has blithely quoted a value of 380 acres assuming it will fly under the radar screen of the rakyat.

Judging from past history, Traks is extremely sceptical as to whether a long-awaited gazette will be formally seen in 2017 or whether there will be another 12-month extension and further unexplained reduced acreage.

The questions posed are simple - we look forward to simple answers.