Do you trust the 'papa-knows-best' gov't?

comments     Published     Updated

your say 'Public Land Transport Commission (Spad), we don't judge you by what you say, we will judge by what you do.'

Setting record straight on Jln Sultan acquisition

DannyLoHH: The Public Land Transport Commission (Spad) letter has confirmed it: it is a land grab using legal and engineering technicality as a cover. I can understand the need to evacuate occupants while tunnelling work is done and the need to strengthen the building due to tunnelling work.

But why, then, the need for the 1989 amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, if Spad is resorting back to the unamended 1965 Act? To me, this is obviously a land grabbing attempt by Spad via bending the Land Acquisition Act to serve some hidden agenda.

We all know that the land being targeted for acquisition is prime land. To say that the owner should not benefit from the appreciation of the land due to the completion of MRT is hogwash and smacks of jealousy.

However, I do agree that individual should not be allowed to gain significant benefit at the expense of the public. In this case, I bet BN cronies are waiting with bated breath for the acquisition so that they could get their dirty hands on such properties for a few quick billions, at the expense of the original lawful owners (the public).

Hann Wei Toh : People should realise it is their duty to give way to the development of public infrastructures. Whether or not they are legal owners of a building, if the building is a hurdle to a public project based on technical analyses, they have the responsibility to leave.

Apparently, they can be expect to be reasonable compensation, but that is probably the only thing they can get back.

Sorry, I am one of those who do not consider those buildings to be of significant historical value. Even if they are of much value, if there is a need to remove them, they have to be.

Basically, the government cannot guarantee that a building "preserved" in this way is still safe for occupation at the end of the project. In engineering work, there are uncertainties that are not controllable or cannot be influenced by humans, unlike certain fields where we can set the expectation and expect people to adhere to it somehow.

Besides, there is likelihood of value appreciation upon completion of the project. If there is a buyer who wishes to pay a significant amount of money to redevelop the place, I doubt the original owner should benefit from it because he or she basically has not contributed to the rise in value.

The government can have the flexibility of sub-letting or selling a shop unit to the owner, but it should not allow the person to gain significant benefit at the expense of the public.

Baiyuensheng: I guess Spad's explanation is fair, as long as the occupants do not feel cheated and can carry on their normal activities after that.

But Spad should feel for the anxiety and uncertainty of the owners when there is no guarantee that they can move back. The government's past record and behaviour do encourage trust in them among the people. I hope Spad's CEO Mohd Nur Kamal can understand the apprehension.

ONG: Spad's Mohd Nur talks of misunderstanding of issues and facts. His letter only adds more confusion.

He first stated the government has decided on the "option of acquiring all affected property at the outset and then re-alienating or re-leasing the properties on the surface back to their original owners after tunnelling works are completed."

But later he states that "the government is in no position to make guarantees of the return of these properties."

To my knowledge, once land has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it becomes state land and the state authority is under no legal obligation to subsequently re-alienate the same land back to the previous owner from whom it was acquired, even with a prior written undertaking.

When people accept such written undertaking, they normally do so because they trust governments not to renegade on a promise. Unfortunately, the present BN government appears to have lost such trust among Malaysians.

Those whose land are acquired must be compensated with the appropriate market value. Such market value is based on value at the time of acquisition, not what their properties may potentially be worth after completion of the MRT together with its stations because the project is not the effort of the landowners.

The only problem with sticking with this admirable principle in this country is that unfortunately, what is most likely to happen is that some BN cronies, instead of the general public, will end up being the main beneficiaries.

However, before even going into the matter of gain, loss and compensation, the first question to answer is whether public transport convenience outweighs loss of heritage buildings and structures. Such losses cannot be reversed.

'Spad admission exposes its hypocrisy'

Kgen: Let's say some infrastructure work is being done near my house. Due to noise, dust and safety concerns, the occupants are advised to move out. I am willing to move out for six months until the construction is complete.

But the contractor insists that I transfer ownership of my house to him for a nominal sum. He cannot guarantee that after the construction I will get my house back. Would you agree to that?

That is exactly what Spad is trying to do to the property owners in Jalan Sultan and Bukit Bintang. There is no need to acquire their properties, it is done in bad faith. The refusal to guarantee that the properties will be returned confirms it.

Myop101: What is new in Malaysia? Day in and out, the papa-knows-best government treats everyone else in this country as village bumpkins, ever ready to be serfs to beautify their ivory towers.

This lack of respect for proprietary rights should be amplified to all investors to rethink whether it is worthwhile continuing or choosing to invest in this country. Given the massive economic loss that will ensue, perhaps the government would realise, they are not papa-knows-best after all.

Rick Teo: Umno is notorious for land-grabbing. My roadside land was compulsorily acquired under the pretext that it was to be used to build a Public Works Department workshop.

Later the acquired land was sold to a developer who then built houses and sold it privately. The road front land was later sold to Petronas for RM1 million.

I was compensated with RM200,000 per acre, but the land and houses built were sold for almost RM8 million. That is how Umno is good at robbing the ordinary rakyat.

Onyourtoes: Spad, we don't judge you by what you say, we will judge by what you do.

You said the views being put forward by concerned parties are inaccurate, incomplete and lack understanding of facts. So please tell us exactly where are the inaccuracies, which information is incomplete and what supplementary information do you need and where is the lack of understanding. Tell us clearly and specifically, don't indulge in generalities.

You did not even disclose to us earlier that underground land can be acquired separately from those at the surface.

Wira: Why did Spad leave out the fact that the MRT project will not be viable if those lands are not acquired? I thought this had already been made very clear by Pemandu chief Idris Jala.

They are expecting that these landowners to help pay for the construction of the MRT, whereby 40 percent or more of those contracts are promised to Umno crony contractors.

 


The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .



Malaysiakini
news and views that matter


Sign In